8th August 2012 20871513 To: Members of the Council Dear Councillor Planning Committee Wednesday 15th August 2012 at Ferrier Hall, City Hall, Cardiff (meeting starts at 2.30.p.m.) I attach a copy of the schedule of Development Control Applications which will be considered at this meeting of the Planning Committee. The plans relating to the applications will be available for inspection at the City Hall, during the whole of Tuesday and Wednesday morning preceding the Committee. Unless otherwise stated in the report, Planning Committee has delegated powers to determine the applications in the schedule. Planning Committee (but not an individual member) can also refer a matter to another committee or to the Council for a resolution. However, Council cannot move an amendment to a recommendation relating to a planning application or make a recommendation relating to a planning application and can only refer a matter back to Planning Committee on one occasion, after which Planning Committee shall decide the matter. Please now note that if any requests for site visits are acceded to by the meeting, such site visits will take place during the afternoon of Wednesday 5th September 2012. If you submit a request for a site visit, you must include in your submission - (a) a choice of at least two starting times for the site visit that you are requesting, each of which must be at least 45 minutes apart; and (b) the reasons why you believe that such a site visit is necessary. If you fail to provide any choices of starting times for the site visit that you've requested, it will be assumed that you will be available to attend such a site visit at any time of the day, regardless of what time it starts. The Clerk to the Council will circulate the Agenda for the meeting to the Members of the Planning Committee separately. Yours sincerely

Strategic Planning and Development Manager

CARDIFF COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE

THE REPORTS OF THE CHIEF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT

OFFICER

LIST OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE ON 15TH AUGUST AT 2.30PM

AREA PAGES HOUSEHOLDER 1 - 9 INNER 10 - 71 OUTER 72 - 148

CARDIFF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN When regard is to be had to the Development Plan the Council’s decision must be made in accordance with the Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The Development Plan for the administrative area of Cardiff remains the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure Plan (1997) and the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Minerals Local Plan together with the approved Mid Glamorgan County structure Plan incorporating Proposed Alterations No.1 (September 1989). In accordance with statutory procedures, the Council prepared and placed on deposit a Unitary Development Plan (to 2016) in October 2003. It has never been formally abandoned but agreement was reached with the Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 to cease work on the UDP and commence work on a new Local Development Plan prepared under the provisions of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. On the 28 April 2009 Cardiff Council placed the Cardiff Local Development Plan 2006-2021 on deposit for public consultation. From that date, and in accordance with the Council’s resolution, it was taken into account in development control decisions. On the 30th November 2009, following consideration of the responses to consultation, the submission draft was submitted to the Welsh Assembly Government for examination. However, in the light of the significant reservations expressed at an Exploratory Meeting by the Inspectors appointed to carry out the examination and their recommendation that the Local Development Plan be with drawn from the examination, the Council duly withdrew the LDP on the 12 April 2010. Unless a draft policy or proposal is a material consideration it should not be taken into account when making decisions: it is strictly irrelevant and if it is given weight in reaching a decision, that decision may be successfully quashed in the High Court. In the general run of cases the withdrawn Local Development Plan will not be a material consideration. If there is an issue in relation to which the withdrawn LDP is relevant, officers will advise the Committee specifically. Otherwise it should not be taken into account. Since the deposited UDP has not been abandoned, its policies and proposals may be a material consideration in a given case, but the weight which can be attached to the

UDP, and any statement of policy including the statutory Development Plan should be determined in the light of the following principal considerations:-

• The degree to which later statements of national policy and the Wales Spatial Plan make the policy out of date and suggest a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it;

• The degree to which the policy is out of date for any other reason; • The level and nature of any objection to a UDP or other draft policy.

Table 1.1: Existing Development Plans covering the Cardiff County Area Cardiff County Area Cardiff Deposit Unitary Development Plan (to 2016)

The Plan was placed on deposit in October 2003 and agreement was reached with Welsh Assembly Government in May 2005 to cease work on the plan and commence work on a new Local Development Plan.

City of Cardiff Area (part of the County of South Glamorgan until April 1996) South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Replacement Structure plan 1991- 2011

Adopted April 1997

City of Cardiff Local Plan (including Waste Policies)

Adopted January 1996

South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area) Minerals Local Plan

Adopted June 1997

Pentyrch Community Area (part of the County of Mid Glamorgan and Borough of Taff Ely until April 1996) Mid Glamorgan County Structure Plan incorporating Proposed Alterations No. 1

Approved September 1989

Mid Glamorgan Replacement Structure Plan

Modifications to the Plan including recommendations of the EIP Panel approved by Mid Glamorgan County Council in January 1996 but not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area.

Glamorgan County Development Plan (Area No. 2)

Approved March 1963

Mid Glamorgan Minerals Local Plan for Limestone Quarrying

In June 1996 Cardiff County Council resolved to approve the Plan as modified by the Inspector’s Report, for development control and other planning purposes, but the Plan was not adopted in respect of the Pentyrch Community Area.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 15th AUGUST 2012 Page No. App No. Location Description Decision Officer

1

12/00701/DCH 5 CARDIFF ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2DN

ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HOUSE TOGETHER WITH CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE AND PROVISION OF DORMER WINDOWS TO REAR

PER ELS

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 15 August 2012

Page No. App No. Location Description Decision Officer

10 12/00280/DCI 27 RHIGOS GARDENS, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4LS

GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION TO 4 FLATS

PER OGR

24 12/00309/DCI LAND AT OXFORD STREET, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF24 3DT

279 Bed Upmarket Student Accommodation tailored to international students and postgraduates;

106 RJC

49 12/00765/DCI LIDL FOODSTORE, MAINDY ROAD, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4HQ

VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 10/00434/C TO READ "THE ARRIVAL MANOEVRING UNLOADING AND DEPARTURE OF DELIVERY VEHICLES SHALL ONLY TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 0800 HRS AND 2200 HRS MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 1000 HRS AND 1600 HRS SUNDAYS

PER OAS

60 12/01045/DCI UNIT 1, QUAYSIDE, BUTE CRESCENT, CARDIFF BAY

VARIATION OF CONDITION 7 OF PLANNING PERMISSION 09/01490/C TO ALLOW THE SALE OF HOT FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISES LIMITED TO FISH AND CHIPS

REF CJE

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 15th August, 2012

Page No.

App No. Location Description Decision Officer

72 11/02178/DCO 100 TY WERN ROAD, RHIWBINA, CARDIFF, CF14 4SF

CONVERSION OF FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE INTO TWO SELF CONTAINED FLATS WITH SINGLE AND FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS AND LOFT CONVERSION WITH REAR DORMER

PER MR

88 11/02190/DCO FORMER MALTINGS PUBLIC HOUSE, COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF5 1GZ

CONSTRUCTION OF 26 NO. DWELLINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS

106 MR

115 12/00137/DCO LAND AT 17, AEL-Y-BRYN, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8AZ

PROPOSED SPLIT LEVEL 3 BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING ON A VACANT PLOT.

PER JH

136 12/00529/DCO LAND ADJACENT TO 15 CWM NOFYDD, RHIWBINA

RETENTION OF DETACHED DWELLING PER JJ

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/00701/DCH APPLICATION DATE: 25/04/2012 ED: LLANDAFF APP: TYPE: Householder APPLICANT: Mr SPICER LOCATION: 5 CARDIFF ROAD, LLANDAFF, CARDIFF, CF5 2DN PROPOSAL: ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING HOUSE TOGETHER WITH

CONVERSION OF ROOF SPACE AND PROVISION OF DORMER WINDOWS TO REAR

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the

information contained in the drawings from the agent dated 09/07/12 and 01/08/12. Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.

2. Within 3 months of the date of this permission the materials used in the

construction of the external surfaces of the dormer extensions hereby permitted shall be finished in natural slate and lead sheeting to match that used on the roof of the existing dwelling. Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing

building in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

3. Within 3 months of the date of this permission the decorative Georgian glazing bars shall be removed from the front first floor windows in accordance with the details illustrated in drawing number 684/PA/06A received on 01/08/12. Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing dwelling in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Retrospective planning permission is sought for two rear dormer roof

extensions and alterations to the existing house.

1.2 The two dormer extensions measure 1.1m wide, 1.1m to eaves, 1.7m to ridge and with a maximum projection of 2.4m, the dormers will be finished in slate to match the existing roof.

1

1.3 The other alterations to the dwelling include the render being removed from the front elevation to expose the original stonework and the replacement of windows to the first floor of the front and rear elevation. Currently the windows to the front are white UPVC windows with Georgian glazing bars, although following consultation with the Council’s Conservation Team the applicant has confirmed the bars are to be removed.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site is a terraced property within the Llandaff Conservation

Area. The dwelling is sited within its plot with a small stepped area to the front of the dwelling and an enclosed garden to the rear.

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 05/01371W – Reduce the angle of steps to front door by converting the

existing 3 steps to 5 shallower longer steps also fit new handrail in between properties – planning permission granted 24/08/05

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.1 City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996)

• Policy 3 (Development in Conservation Area) • Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) • Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) • Policy 2.20 (Good Design) • Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) • Policy 2.53 (Conservation Area) • Policy 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) Supplementary Planning Guidance • Access. Circulation and Parking Requirements (2010) • Householders Design Guide (2007) • Llandaff Conservation Area Appraisal (2006)

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 Prior to work commencing on site the applicant liaised with the Councils

Conservation Team in regards to the rear dormer roof extensions. The Conservation Team has no objection to the loft conversion subject to an acceptable finish. In regards to the replacement front windows although being UPVC they represent an enhancement over the windows which were removed. The applicant has also confirmed that the unsympathetic Georgian glazing bars will be removed.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES

2

6.1 The Llandaff Conservation Group objects to the proposal in relation to the dormer extensions not preserving or enhancing the roof line of the Conservation Area, affecting the privacy of neighbouring properties, being out of keeping with the rest of the roof scape and appear overbearing.

7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Cllr Kirsty Davies has concerns regarding the development on the following

grounds:

• Does not improve or enhance the Conservation Area and are out of keeping with the surrounding roof scape. • The dormer windows result in an intrusion on the privacy of neighbours to the rear. The first floor windows which exist in the rear elevation of the dwelling do not overlook neighbours.

7.2 The occupiers of 15 Bridge Street object to the application for the following

reasons:

• Neighbouring properties are now overlooked by the dormer windows at the rear of 5 Cardiff Road. • If permitted the dormer extensions will result in an un-neighbourly, unsympathetic and overbearing development. • The loft conversion at the property is not consistent with the conservation approaches. It is only one of its type in the conservation area and ruins the roof line of the terrace which has been discouraged here and in other areas of the Llandaff Conservation area. • Development throughout the Conservation Area has been encouraged towards the use of roof lights instead of dormer windows. To permit this ‘one-off’ in its current form will adversely affect the principles and practice of conservation in this conservation area, setting a new precedent. • The application should be considered by the Conservation Area Advisory Group and Planning Committee.

7.3 The occupiers of 17 Bridge Road objects to the application for the following reasons:

• Not all properties affected by this development have been consulted. The investigating Enforcement Officer originally advised that the works were Permitted Development but this advice was rescinded when he realised it was in the Conservation Area. • The dormer windows completely destroy the privacy previously had, are omnipresent and extremely intrusive. • The distance between the dormers in the new development and the nearest habitable room windows of neighbouring properties is below the distance recommended. • The situation has not been properly assessed in relation to impact upon privacy. Officers have suggested that the windows in the

3

dormers would not impact on the privacy of neighbours anymore than the existing first floor windows do. However, the existing first floor windows do not look above the garden wall. • Utilisation of roof lights has been used in previous developments. • If the dormers were allowed to remain it would set a precedent and be a clear indication that despite being in a conservation area and breaching recommended guidelines, the planning department will probably waive it through, particularly if you undertake development without applying for planning permission. • The dormer windows will benefit only the developer and the occupant of the property but will have an immediate detrimental impact on existing residents.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 The key issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and

appearance of the area and on the living conditions of neighbours. 8.2 The dormer extensions are considered acceptable in regards to their

design and appearance. They are sited to the rear of the dwelling, of a small scale pitch and are set well within the roof plane (0.6m from the ridge, 0.9m from the eaves and 0.4m from the nearest boundary). Accordingly, it is considered that the development will not prejudice the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. However, to ensure the appearance of the dormer extensions are acceptable, condition 2 is deemed necessary.

8.3 Officers note comments made by 15 and 17 Bridge Street and the

Llandaff Conservation Group in relation to the development being overbearing. The Householder Design Guide states that the dormer windows should complement the design and proportion of the original building to help ensure they do not dominate the house or street. The Guide also advises that the dormers should be set below the original roof ridge, set back from the edge of the roof and set back from the external wall. The dormers at 5 Cardiff Road have been set down from the ridge by 0.6m, up from the eaves by 0.9m and from the edge of each side of the roof by at least 0.4m. The Council’s Conservation Team state that the dormers are proportioned relative to the roof slope and in this instance reflect the scale and proportions of the property.

8.4 Concerns have been made by the occupiers of 15 and 17 Bridge

Street, Cllr Davies and the Llandaff Conservation Group in relation to the dormer windows not preserving, enhancing or being consistent with the Conservation Area. The Council’s Conservation Team have advised that given that the works are to the rear of the dwelling it is unlikely that they would fundamentally impact on the Conservation Area and would as such be considered acceptable. With regards to the concerns raised in relation to the roof slope and the impact on the roof line raised by the Llandaff Conservation Group, Cllr Davies and the occupiers of 15 Bridge Street, the Llandaff Conservation Area

4

Appraisals states that new dormers will only be appropriate where they respect the scale of the house, protect the character of the existing roof form and the appearance of the Conservation Area. The dormer windows for this application have been positioned on the roof slope with an attempt to align the two dormer extensions with the windows located in the main dwelling below them. The positioning of the dormers on the roof in this manner respects the symmetry evident in the existing dwelling. It is officers opinion that the relatively small scale of the dormer windows and their positioning on the roof slope ensures that they relate to the style of the existing dwelling and have a more balanced appearance on the roof as opposed to one larger dormer extension.

8.5 In regards to the neighbouring properties to the side of the application

site, it is considered there would not be any adverse impact upon their privacy or residential amenity as a result of the proposed rear dormers. The dormers would be set in from the side elevations and set in from the existing ridge and eaves so as to not cause un-neighbourly impact in respect to the occupiers of 3 and 7 Cardiff Road.

8.6 Officers note the concerns raised by the occupier(s) of 15 Bridge Street

and 17 Bridge Street, Cllr Davies and the Llandaff Conservation Group in relation to the effect on privacy and overlooking caused by the development. The Householder Design Guide suggests that habitable room windows should be positioned 10.5m from the rear boundary of a site and 21m between habitable room windows which directly back onto each other. It also suggests that where there is an established development pattern the above guidelines may not be appropriate. The windows to the dormer extensions will serve one habitable (bedroom) and one non habitable room (en suite bathroom). The habitable room window is approximately 14m from the boundary of 15 Bridge Street and 11m from the rear boundary of 17 Bridge Street. The dormer windows will be approximately 17m from the rear habitable room window at 15 Bridge Street and 16m to the window at 17 Bridge Street. However, it is important to note that these windows will be at an angle and do not directly look into each other. Accordingly it is considered that it would be unreasonable to strictly adhere the 21m distance referred to in the Householder Design Guide. In addition it is noted that the established residential pattern allows for the potential for overlooking of existing first floor windows at a distance of less than 21m. Windows at first floor in the dwelling of the application site are positioned closer to the neighbouring properties than the dormer windows. It is noted there are trees between the application site and the neighbouring properties to the rear which provide some privacy for neighbours in addition to the existing boundary enclosure.

8.6 Issues raised by 15 and 17 Bridge Street regarding precedent being

set following this development are noted. However, each planning application submitted to the Local Planning Authority is dealt with on its

5

own merits. Should further applications be submitted for similar proposals they will be determined accordingly.

8.7 The replacement windows to the front are considered an improvement

to the original. The applicant has confirmed that the unsympathetic Georgian bars will be removed. Condition 3 will ensure that the alterations take place. The applicant has also confirmed that no works will take place to the ground floor bay window to the front. The Councils Conservation Team therefore has no objections.

8.9 The proposal to remove the render to the front elevation and expose

the original stone work is considered acceptable by the Council’s Conservation Team. The Llandaff Conservation Area Appraisal states that natural building materials such as stone should be preserved and protected.

8.10 The proposal does not affect highway safety/parking. 8.11 It should be noted that it is not illegal to construct something which

requires planning permission. Advice within ‘TAN 9: Enforcing Planning Control’, suggests that a Local Planning Authority should invite a retrospective planning application to fully assess the development. The investigating Enforcement Officer reached a conclusion that planning permission was required and a planning application was submitted. This application has been publicised correctly in accordance with the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995. A notice was placed on site and within the local press. In addition all adjoining occupiers were notified by letter.

8.12 In view of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be

granted, subject to appropriate conditions.

6

7

8

9

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION / PETITION COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/280/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 13/03/2012 ED: CATHAYS APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Dr Salih LOCATION: 27 RHIGOS GARDENS, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24 4LS PROPOSAL: GROUND FLOOR REAR EXTENSION AND CONVERSION TO

4 FLATS ___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions: 1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans

numbered ACA9/4/d, ACA9/5/b, ACA9/6/b and ACA9/10/c, attached to and forming part of this planning application.

Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in side elevation of the extension facing 25 Rhigos Gardens. Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected. 4. C7S Details of Refuse Storage 5. C3S Cycle Parking 6. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of

the extension hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. Reason: To ensure the external materials harmonise with the existing building in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

7. The existing garage at the site shall be retained at all times for the parking of vehicles associated with the approved residential use. Reason: To ensure that adequate parking provision is retained clear of the roads so as not to prejudice the safety, convenience and free flow of traffic.

RECOMMENDATION 2: That the applicant be advised that no work should take place on or over the neighbour's land without the neighbour's express

10

consent and this planning approval gives no such rights to undertake works on land outside the applicant’s ownership. RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils,

aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being

contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances.

• Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

(iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the

developer. Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Planning permission is sought to convert an end of terrace dwelling in Rhigos

Gardens into 4 flats, along with a single-storey extension to the rear of the dwelling. This application was deferred from the last Planning Committee for a Committee site visit which is scheduled for the 8th August.

1.2 The proposed single-storey rear extension wraps around the property’s

existing two-storey rear annexe (see attached plan). The proposed extension is 5.3 metres wide and has a total length of 7.7 metres; it would project 3.5 metres beyond the rear of the existing annexe and is 3.6 metres in height to ridge with a hipped roof (2.4 metres to eaves). The extension would be finished in render with a slate roof.

11

1.3 The application as originally submitted included a rear dormer extension and a larger flat roof single-storey extension. Officers expressed concern to the agent over the design of these extensions and amended plans were subsequently received illustrating the dormer extension removed from the application and the single-storey extension reduced in length and roof form amended to a hipped roof.

1.4 The proposed development would provide 2 no. one-bedroom flats at ground

floor, a one-bedroom flat at first floor rear and a two-bedroom flat over first floor front and second floor. Each flat includes a shower room, combined lounge/kitchen area and bedroom. Access would be gained to each flat via a shared hallway from the existing front entrance of the dwelling and all residents would have access to the rear garden area, which would include 6 no. cycle stands and bin storage area.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The property is a traditional end of terrace dwelling located adjacent the

junction of Rhigos Gardens and Maindy Road. The property includes an enclosed front forecourt and rear garden. The rear garden is enclosed by a 1.8 metre high brick wall and fence and includes a detached brick-built garage that is accessible from Maindy Road. The dwelling has been extended with a conservatory on the side elevation adjacent Maindy Road.

2.2 Rhigos Gardens comprises of two rows of brick-built terrace properties facing

an attractive open grassed square lined with trees. Parking is provided for residents on-street around the square. A lane adjoins the terrace to the rear, which provides access to rear gardens/garages

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 12/00016/DCH: Ground floor rear extension and rear dormer – withdrawn

29/02/12 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 The site lies within an existing area of housing, as defined in the adopted City

of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996). The following Local Plan policies are relevant:

(i) 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) (ii) 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) (iii) 18 (Provision for Cyclists) (iv) 28 (Subdivision of Residential Property)

4.2 The following policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan

(October 2003) are relevant:

(i) 2.20 (Good Design) (ii) 2.22 (Subdivision of Residential Properties), (iii) 2.24 (Residential Amenity)

12

(iv) 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) (v) 2.74 (Provision of Waste Management Facilities in Development)

4.3 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance is relevant:

(i) Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008), (ii) Householder Design Guide (March 2007) (iii) Access, Circulation and Parking Standards (January 2010) (iv) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 The Operational Manager, Transportation, advises that in terms of parking

requirements the current dwelling would attract between 1 and 2 spaces; while the proposed conversion to 3 no. one-bedroom flats and 1 no. two-bedroom flat would attract between 2 and 5 parking spaces. The parking standards for the 2 uses therefore overlap at the upper level of the existing and lower level of the proposed. However, in considering the parking requirement the location of the site, similar precedent developments, and appeal decisions must also be taken into account. To which end it is noted that the site is in close proximity to the Crwys Road/Woodville Road district centre as well as the City Centre, with all the employment, shopping, entertainment, etc., opportunities such a location affords. The location is also within easy reach of bus public transport services on Cathays Terrace and Maindy Road, rail services at Cathays Station and is ideally located to take advantage of the cycle network and on road cycle facilities. The location of the site is therefore considered to be extremely sustainable in transportation terms. It must also be noted that a recent flat conversion/development at Teal Street, Roath, for 9 units was refused on parking grounds. The refusal was appealed and subsequently determined in favour of the applicant, with costs awarded against the Council.

For the above reasons, it is concluded that the site is sustainably located and policy compliant provided at least 6 no. secured cycle parking spaces are provided at the site and therefore any objection on parking grounds would be unsustainable, and any reason for refusal on that basis would not withstand challenge at Public Inquiry. Accordingly, the Transportation Service has no objection to the proposal subject to a condition ensuring at least 6 no. long-stay sheltered and secured cycle parking spaces are provided at the site.

5.2 The Operational Manager, Waste Management, advises that the identified

refuse storage area should be capable of accommodating 4x25 litre kerbside caddies, 4x140 litre bulk bins, a storage space for recycling bags, and should be accessible to all residents of the flats.

5.3 The Strategic Planning Manager, Pollution Control, request that an advisory

note relating to contamination and unstable land be included on any permission.

5.4 Welsh Water Dwr Cymru requested that conditions be imposed on any

13

permission to ensure that foul water and surface water is drained separately from the site and that land drainage runoff shall not be discharged into the public sewerage system.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Nil 7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Neighbours have been consulted and letters of objection have been received

form the occupiers of Nos. 4, 5, 14, 23, 25, Rhigos Gardens, Nos. 31, 37, Maindy Road and No. 28 Pentyrch Street, raising the following concerns:

(i) The change in use to flats will not be in keeping with the character of

the street, which comprises of two and three bedroom family homes. (ii) The proposed development is an over intensive use of the existing

space and would jeopardise the build quality of the dwelling. (iii) The intensive use of the property as 4 flats would result in an

unacceptable increase in noise levels. (iv) The proposed rear extension would block out natural light to

neighbouring properties. (v) There are currently parking pressures in the area due to nearby student

accommodation and, following a petition by local residents, permit parking has been installed for parts of the street. The existing provision is aimed at family homes that have an average of one car per household, there is not enough parking provision to accommodate the proposed 4 flats.

(vi) The proposed extension would block sunlight to the rear facing kitchen window and garden of No. 25 Rhigos Gardens.

(vii) The proposed ground floor extension would overlook Nos. 31 & 37 Maindy Road and prejudice the privacy of the occupiers of these properties as well as that of the future occupiers of the flats

(viii) The development would set an unwelcome precedence in a locality which struggles to maintain a sense of community within a large student population. Providing more rented properties owned by landlords changes the balance of occupation between owners and tenants and ultimately leads to the deterioration of the area.

(ix) It seems unnecessary to create additional student accommodation at a time where student numbers are falling. There is no need for this type of accommodation, particularly as there are a large number of properties in Cathays uninhabited.

(x) Building on such a large area of garden could have implications on drainage.

(xi) No external fire escape has been shown for the proposed flats. 7.2 Jenny Rathbone, Assembly Member for Cardiff Central, advises that she has

been contacted by a constituent with concerns over the proposed development and she advises that residents have the following concerns:

14

(i) The extension will be intrusive and reduce light to the adjoining properties and would be clearly visible at this location.

(ii) The conversion into flats is overdevelopment and this kind of dense housing has an impact on the local area in terms of rubbish collection, parking, noise etc.

(iii) The street still has a high proportion of permanent residents in an area that has faced challenges where many of the properties have been brought by landlords. Allowing a conversion into flats here would create a dangerous precedence that would change the nature of the local area.

(iv) The Council should make a strategic decision that Cathays needs a proportion of permanent residents and should promote residents’ interests rather than the interests of landlords as far as they can. The loss of family homes affects the viability of local schools, crime and even the sense of local community.

7.3 Councillor Elizabeth Clarke objects to the application for the following

reasons:

(i) The proposed development represents an overdevelopment of the site, it would turn a 3 bedroom family home into 4 flats which may have up to 8 people living there and there is little amenity space for each resident.

(ii) There are long running parking problems in Rhigos Gardens and the Maindy Road area and the proposed development would lead to serious further parking problems on the street.

(iii) It is understood that there is no precedent in Rhigos Gardens for any single storey extensions. At 3.5 metres from the house the proposed extension will be out of keeping with neighbouring properties and, as it is an end of terrace property, would be seen from the road.

(iv) The plans are unclear and do not clearly outline what space will be available for residents in the flats and in terms of safety, there does not appear to be a fire escape identified from the attic rooms.

(v) The proposed extension would result in loss of light the neighbouring property.

7.4 Councillors Sam Knight, Sarah Merry and Chris Weaver object to the

application on the following grounds:

(i) The size of the extension after amendment is still significant and will be intrusive and reduce light to adjoining properties.

(ii) There is a particular problem in Cathays with the number of residential homes being converted to HMO’s and flats – the high density of population that results from this has significant impact in terms of parking, rubbish, and noise. It affects the provision of Council services in Cathays with the Council having to put huge resources into street cleansing and rubbish collections. It has also affected the numbers on the rolls at local schools and consequently their funding, in the past their long term viability has been called into question causing anxiety for families in the area.

15

(iii) This small area of Cathays has already faced considerable pressure from the development of flats built behind Maindy Road, resulting in lack of parking for residents.

(iv) The application is clearly overdevelopment and sets a detrimental precedent for the future.

(v) The Council needs to have a strategy for ensuring that Cathays retains a proportion of properties available for non-multi occupation households, and should put the interests of all residents, owner-occupiers and tenants, ahead of landlords as much as possible.

7.5 Former Councillors Simon Wakefield and Jon Aylwin object to the application

for the following reasons:

(i) The drawings are inadequate to allow for proper assessment of the proposed development.

(ii) The number of flats, and size of the proposed extension, represents an overdevelopment of the site.

(iii) The extension overlooks No. 25 and any windows in the side elevation facing this property should be glazing in obscure glass.

(iv) Four flats would result in 8 residents, all of which would be entitled to parking permits and there is only space for 1 car outside the property.

7.6 A petition including 61 signatures has been submitted by the occupier of No.

25 Rhigos Gardens objecting to the application on the following grounds:

(i) The ground floor extension is an overdevelopment that substantially increases the footprint of the dwelling and appears out of keeping with other dwellings in the area.

(ii) The extension substantially reduces the available garden space. (iii) The extension will be overbearing and greatly reduce the natural light

and visual outlook from immediate neighbours. (iv) The proposed development of 4 flats with 5 bedrooms has a possible

occupancy of 10 people. (v) An increase in tenants will bring further potential parking problems to

an already congested parking area. (vi) An increase in tenants will add greatly to the potential for increased

noise and disturbance.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 Policy 28 of the Local Plan supports the subdivision of residential property to

self-contained flats subject to ‘appropriate provision for car parking, amenity space and refuse disposal together with appropriate external alterations’. Policy 2.22 of the UDP also supports such development provided that a) ‘the resulting residential accommodation and amenity will be satisfactory’; and b) the cumulative impact of such conversions will not adversely affect the amenity of the area’. The principle of converting the existing house into flats is therefore considered acceptable.

16

8.2 The proposed flats all have a floorpace of 30sqm or above, which meets the minimum floorspace standards normally applied to this type of development, and all habitable rooms within the development include satisfactory outlook.

It should be noted that, in respect of the proposed physical extension, the

Householder Design Guide requires sufficient garden space to be retained to accommodate bin and cycle storage, washing line and useable form and location for private amenity space. A minimum of 25m2 of an appropriate shape and siting should be retained (dependent upon the context of the size of the house and garden). For larger houses, or those areas where the established character includes good sized private gardens, any extension…. beyond the permitted development limit, should ensure the retention of a significant area of garden space. Proposals in this instance will be considered in relation to the character and context of the original house.

The proposed development would retain more than 70sqm of shared external

amenity space at the rear of the proposed extension, which would be accessible to all resident. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed flats would offer acceptable living standards for future occupiers and does not constitute overdevelopment.

8.3 The proposed single-storey rear extension as originally submitted adjoined the

boundary with No. 25 Rhigos Gardens, projected 4.5 metres beyond the rear elevation of this neighbouring property, and had a 2.9 metre high flat roof. Officers expressed concern to the agent over the design of the extension and its impact on the neighbouring occupiers and amended plans have subsequently been received illustrating the extension set in 200mm from the boundary with No. 25, reduced in length to 3.5 metres adjacent this boundary, and its roof form altered to a hipped roof that has an eaves height of 2.4 metres adjacent the boundary with No. 25 and slopes up and away from the boundary to a ridge height of 3.2 metres.

8.4 It is considered that the proposed extension at a length of 3.5 metres and

eaves height of 2.4 metres adjacent the boundary with No. 25 would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers in terms of overshadowing or overbearing. The extension is located a significant distance from all other residential properties and would not prejudice the privacy of the neighbouring occupies.

8.5 The proposed extension, as amended, is subservient to the main dwelling and

incorporates a slate pitched roof, which is in keeping with the roof of the main dwelling and garage. The extension is subservient to the main dwelling and retains adequate rear gardens space. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed extension would not have an adverse impact on the street scene and does not constitute an overdevelopment of the site.

8.6 The site plan submitted with the application indicates that a bin storage area

would be provided for residents of the flats within the enclosed rear garden of the property. The Operational Manager, Waste Management, is satisfied with

17

this arrangement provided adequate facilities are provided, which can be secured by a condition (see condition 4).

8.7 The concerns raised in respect of parking are noted. The site is well located in

relation to public transport services (see paragraph 5.1) and the site includes a 6 metre wide detached garage that is capable of accommodating 1 - 2 cars. In addition to this off-street parking, Rhigos Gardens includes resident parking, and unrestricted parking is available adjacent the site on Maindy Road. Accordingly, subject to appropriate conditions that ensure cycle parking and garage parking is provided and retained at the site, it is considered that adequate parking provision would be available for future residents and therefore an objection to the proposal on parking grounds cannot be sustained.

8.8 The concerns over the need for additional flats, the loss of ‘family homes’ and

wider impact of such flat conversions on the area are noted. However, information from Private Sector Housing shows that there are currently no registered HMO’s in Rhigos Gardens, no licensed HMO’s in the 14 properties at the rear along Pentyrch Street, 1 HMO on Gelligaer Gardens, and of the 41 properties between Nos. 1-81 (odds), there are 3 licensed HMO’s. The Council’s current adopted planning policy supports the conversion of residential properties into flats (see paragraph 8.1) and, given the above facts and the fact that there are no consented flats on this street, it is considered that there is no policy grounds to warrant a refusal of the application in terms of character or over concentration.

8.9 In terms of other concerns raised, not addressed above:

• There is no evidence to warrant a refusal on the grounds of pressure to Council Services.

• If a noise nuisance were to arise from the proposed flats it would be subject to normal statutory noise complaints procedures and controls which are covered by the Council’s Pollution Control Service.

• The submitted plans are considered sufficient to allow for proper assessment of the proposal.

• There are other properties in Rhigos Gardens that have single-storey rear extensions.

• The requirement to provide appropriate drainage from the proposed extension, and fire escapes within the building, are covered by Building Regulations.

• It is considered that, subject to appropriate conditions, the proposed development complies with adopted planning policy and, as such, approval of the application would not set an undesirable precedent.

8.10 In view of the above, it is recommended that planning permission be granted,

subject to conditions.

18

19

20

21

22

23

COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/00309/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 29/02/2012 ED: PLASNEWYDD APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: LG Urban Developments Ltd LOCATION: LAND AT OXFORD STREET, ROATH, CARDIFF, CF24 3DT PROPOSAL: 279 Bed Upmarket Student Accommodation tailored to

international students and postgraduates ___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION 1: That, subject to the relevant parties entering into a binding agreement with the Council under S106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 with respect to issues raised in section 9 of this report that Planning Permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. No development shall take place until a comprehensive scheme of foul

and surface water drainage for the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority; the approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any accommodation hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure for a sustainable drainage solution 3. The drainage scheme required by condition 2 shall include for a report

on the practicality of utilizing Sustainable Urban Drainage techniques (SUDs) for the disposal of surface water from the development based on the results of ground permeability testing. Reason: To ensure that the potential for utilizing SUDs has been appropriately investigated with the aim of reducing/attenuating the volume of surface water flows entering the public drainage system.

4. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until

a scheme detailing the measures necessary for the purpose of monitoring gases generated on the site or land adjoining thereto and for any measures necessary to protect the development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall provide details of measures that are required to ensure the safe and inoffensive dispersal or management of gases and to prevent lateral migration of gases into or from land surrounding the application site. Gases includes landfill gases, vapours from

24

contaminated land sites, and naturally occurring methane and carbon dioxide, but does not include radon gas.

All measures specified in the above scheme shall (unless otherwise agreed in writing) be undertaken and completed prior to any development commencing or in accordance with a timetable as shall be previously agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority and the measures shall be retained and maintained until such time as the Local Planning Authority agree in writing.

Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced. 5. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until

a scheme detailing the measures necessary for the purposes of identifying chemical and other contaminants on the site and to ensure that the land is suitable for the proposed development has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall include details of any measures necessary to protect future occupiers/users of the land from chemical and other contaminants. All measures in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with a timetable which shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced. 6. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate

material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes.

Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced.

7. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a

scheme of construction management has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, to include as required details of site hoardings, site access and wheel washing facilities. Construction of the development shall be managed strictly in accordance with the scheme so approved.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity.

25

8. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be commenced until

a scheme of environmental improvements to Castle Lane, Oxford Street, Oxford Lane and Vere Street adjacent to the site has been submitted to and approval in writing by the LPA. The scheme should include as required, but not be limited to, the provision of an enhanced lighting scheme to Castle Lane, the construction of the proposed access crossover on Oxford Street; the widening of the footway on the development side of Vere Street between City Road and Oxford Street, with consideration to making this one way operation; the resurfacing as required of the remaining footways, including the northern footway of Oxford Lane between City Road and Oxford Street; the creation of a contraflow cycle lane on Oxford Lane between Oxford Street and Wordsworth Avenue; to include surfacing, kerbs, edging, drainage, lighting, lining, signing and Traffic Orders as may be required as a consequence of the scheme. The agreed scheme to be implemented to the satisfaction of the LPA prior to beneficial occupation of the site. Reason: To facilitate appropriately safe and efficient access to the proposed development and mitigate against any otherwise potentially adverse impact on surrounding residences and businesses in the interests of highway and pedestrian safety.

9. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until a

travel/parking/traffic/resident/letting management plan to include, but not limited to, the promotion of public transport and other alternatives to the private car; the management of traffic at the start and end of term; the control of vehicular access to the site; the exclusion and control of student resident car parking within the site and surrounding area, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: in the interest of highway safety and to regulate the impact of the development on use of the adjacent highway.

10. Doors and ground floor windows must be designed and installed in

such a way as to prevent them opening outward over any public footway or adopted highway.

Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety. 11. C20 Architectural Detailing 12. E1B Samples of Materials 13. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans

received on 26th July 2012, attached to and forming part of this planning application.

Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application.

26

14. A scheme of sound insulation works to the floor/ceiling and party wall structures between any communal areas (including but not limited to any ancillary A3 areas) and any residential accommodation within the development shall be submitted to and agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing and implemented prior to occupation. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residents within the development are protected.

15. There shall be no arrival, departure, loading or unloading of delivery or

service vehicles outside of the hours of 08:00 and 20:00 on any day. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

16. The rating level of the noise emitted from any fixed plant and

equipment on the site shall not exceed the existing background noise level at any time by more than 5dB(A) at any residential property when measured and corrected in accordance with BS 4142: 1997(or any British Standard amending or superseding that standard). Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

17. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order

with or without modification), the ancillary ‘cafe’ use shall only be operated as such shall not be used for any other purpose or operated as an independent planning unit. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

18. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Use

Classes) Order 1987 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no sale of hot food for consumption off the premises shall take place from the café element of the premises. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

19. The extraction of all fumes from any commercial food preparation

areas shall be mechanically extracted to a point to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and the extraction system shall be provided with a de-odorising filter. All equipment shall be so mounted and installed so as not to give rise to any noise nuisance or visual intrusion. Details of the above equipment including the chimney shall

27

be submitted to, and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing and the equipment installed prior to the commencement of any cooking of food. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturers' guidelines, such guidelines having first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

20. The café shall not operate outside of the hours of 07:00 and 22:00

Mon-Sat or outside of the hours of 09.00 and 22.00 Sundays. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of residential occupiers within the development and amenities of occupiers/users of nearby premises are protected.

21. No development shall be commenced until there has been submitted to

and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme of landscaping ,which shall include details of all hard surfaced / paved areas, tree and other planting. All approved hard landscaping shall be implemented prior to the occupation of the accommodation hereby approved and any soft landscaping within a timetable to be agreed with the local planning authority but no later than the end of the first available planting season following occupation of the development . Reason: To maintain and improve the appearance of the area, the development and enhance the privacy and amenity of occupants.

22. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be

assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes.

Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the LPA. Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced.

23. No part of the development hereby permitted shall be occupied until

the 142 cycle parking spaces indicated on the approved plans have

28

been proved on site; thereafter the cycle parking spaces shall be retained and maintained and shall not be used for any other purpose. Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles and to promote the use of sustainable transport.

24. E3D Retain Parking Within Site

25. C1P BREEAM - (Non Res) Overarching Condition 26. C1R BREEAM - (Non Res) Post Construction

27. No development shall commence until full details of the proposed

position and mitigating privacy measures relating to windows within the Castle Lane elevation of the building have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The windows shall thereafter accord with approved details.

Reason: To ensure for adequate privacy between adjacent occupiers/uses.

RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations. RECOMMENDATION 3: This development falls within an area which has a geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations 2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division RECOMMENDATION 4: The contamination assessments and the affects of unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for (i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils,

aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances

29

should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site:

1 Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. 2. Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being

contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances.

3. Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

(iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the

developer. Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land. The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination. RECOMMENDATION 5: The highway works condition above and any other works to the existing public highway (to be undertaken by the developer) are to be subject to an agreement under Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority. RECOMMENDATION 6: All ground floor doors and windows should be installed to meet the Police Secured by Design standards.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 This detailed application relates to redevelopment of a vacant site for 279

postgraduate student bed spaces in, principally, 4 storey height accommodation arranged in a courtyard formation with residential blocks forming the boundaries of the site and with an open central amenity area. The scheme includes for 1 disabled and 13 standard operational parking spaces and 142 Cycle spaces accessed from Oxford Street.

The development would also contain a small ancillary café within its reception

area.

30

1.2 Waste storage and service installations would be accommodated within a

ground level undercroft on the Oxford St side of the development and waste would be collected from that road.

1.3 Externally the building would be finished in white render above a Staffordshire

blue brick plinth and with coloured infill panels in primary red blue and yellow colours. The internal courtyard would be similarly finished with added panels of Staffordshire blue brick at higher levels. The inner courtyard would be landscaped in a mixture of hard and soft materials and would contain managed tree planting.

1.4 The building has achieved a BREEAM pre-assessment score of 63.4 credits

allowing for 10% renewable energy, and achieves a ‘Very Good’ sustainability rating under this methodology

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site relates to cleared rectangle of land (76 x 42m - 0.31 h)

on the corner of Vere Street and Oxford Street in Plasnewydd (forming the N and E boundaries of the site). A rear service lane (Castle Lane) forms the western boundary and separates the site from the rear of properties at 22-42(e) City Road. To the South, the site is abutted by a single storey industrial unit with ancillary parking area (Minerva Laboratories and Ultrawave Ltd).

2.2 The application site is located in an area with a mix of uses including storage /

commercial buildings to the east and south, residential units to the south-east (Roden Court), a local authority playground to the north, and the rear of principally Class A1 shop and A3 food and drink premises (some with residential flats / storage above) to the west.

2.3 The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of one, two and three storey

properties with notably taller buildings at Longcross Court on Newport Road and Coleg Glan Hafren to the west.

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 A full application (07/2117/C) for 104 No. 1 and 2 bedroomed flats was

resolved to be Granted Planning Permission in January 2008 subject to the signing of a legal agreement for commuted payments in respect of Community Facilities, Transportation Improvements and in lieu of Amenity Space Provision totalling approximately £171,000 and to realise 30% affordable housing accommodation on site (20% social rented

31

accommodation + 10% low cost home ownership). The legal agreement has not been progressed.

3.2 A full application, 07/350/C, for 110 one and two bed flats over 3, 4 and 5

storeys was refused permission on 19 July 2007 principally because of lack of affordable housing; overdevelopment; privacy for prospective residents compromised by courtyard layout; substandard access via Castle Lane; and, insufficient distance behind parking spaces.

3.3 Two outline planning applications (siting and means of access identified) were

submitted in 2005 (05/541/C – southern part of the site, and 05/542/C – northern part) for a phased residential redevelopment with a total of 106 flats and 87 parking spaces on the entire Minerva Dental site. These applications were reported to Planning Committee in August 2005 and Committee resolved to grant both outline consents subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement. Again, the legal agreements have not been progressed.

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 Planning Policy Wales (2002) Planning Policy Wales TAN12: Design 4.2 Adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (January 1996):

Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) Policy 18 (Provision for Cyclists) Policy 31 (Residential Open Space Requirement) Policy 40 (City Road Area)

4.3 Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (Deposit Written Statement October 2003): Policy 2.20 (Good Design)

Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) Policy 2.26 (Open Space, Recreation and Leisure) Policy 2.36 (City Road Area) Policy 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements)

4.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance

- Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) - Open Space (January 1999) - Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements (June 2006) - Community Facilities and Residential Development (March 2006)

32

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 Transport Infrastructure and Waste (Transport Policy)

The submission has been assessed and is considered acceptable subject to the following comments, conditions and S106 matters: Conditions: • Standard Cycle Parking condition C3S modified to specify a minimum of

50% of total bedroom numbers (min. 140 spaces) under cover and secure for residential use;

• Combined Travel and Student Accommodation Traffic Management Plan condition –

• Highway works condition – • Construction management plan condition – • Outward opening doors/windows – Doors and ground floor windows are to

be constructed and installed in such a way as to prevent them opening outward over the public footway. Reason: In the interest of pedestrian safety.

Section 106 contribution: A financial contribution of £3,120 towards additional traffic order modifications that may be required as a consequence of the development. Second Recommendation: The highway works condition and any other works to the existing public highway (to be undertaken by the developer) are to be subject to an agreement under Section 278 Highways Act 1980 between the developer and Local Highway Authority. Comments: In respect of the scheme as originally submitted, the Transportation Officer had the following comments: The adopted Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG confirms that up to one parking space per 25 beds may be provided for operational use, amounting to a maximum of 11 spaces for the proposed development; there is no requirement for on site resident or visitor car parking. I am therefore satisfied that subject to the cycle parking condition, the application is compliant with adopted parking policy.

33

I am also satisfied, subject to agreement of the Traffic Management Plan, that there is sufficient capacity within Oxford Street to manage the arrival and departure of the student residents at the start and end term. This approach is consistent with a number of other similar student residences. It should be noted that the incoming student residents would not qualify for Resident Parking Permits, that the letting/management plan will control vehicle access to and student car parking within the site and surrounding area, and that a contribution is sought towards making any TRO modifications that may be required as a consequence of the development. The site is also located within easy reach of a well served, high frequency main bus corridor (Newport Road) as well as the City Road District Centre, with both inbound and outbound stops/services. As a result the site is within easy reach of a wide range of local facilities on City Road as well as the City Centre. I am satisfied that the development will not have a detrimental impact on the use of the surrounding highway network and therefore have no objection to the application subject to the above conditions, S106 and other comments. Further Observations are sought in respect of the amended proposals (which have 14 operational car parking spaces) and will be reported at Planning Committee.

5.2 Pollution Control: Contamination: The site of the proposed development has a history of being a former water treatment works, with reservoirs which were subsequently infilled. Therefore there is a potential for contamination to be present, and given the sensitive end use of residential development an appropriate assessment of the risks from contamination and ground gases should be undertaken. Therefore the following conditions are recommended: Ground gas protection; contaminated land measures; imported soils; imported aggregates; together with a contamination and unstable land advisory notice Noise: Require conditions in respect of a scheme of sound insulation works; opening hours 08:00 -23:30 delivery times 08:00 - 20:00; plant noise; together with a construction site advisory notice. Air Pollution: Require conditions in respect of no takeaway sales; kitchen extraction;

34

5.3 Parks Services

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance - Open Space requires provision of a satisfactory level and standard of open space on all new housing/student developments, or an off-site contribution towards existing open space for smaller scale developments where new on-site provision is not applicable. The central courtyard open space is a very positive element of the design which will undoubtedly add to the quality of scheme, both for students using the courtyard and also when viewed from the rooms. However as the courtyard will be a private space only available to students using the accommodation, rather than the general public, the developers are required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of open space off-site, or the improvement (including design and maintenance) of existing open space in the locality.

Based on the information given, allowing for an occupancy rate of 279 the contribution will be £147,816.

It will be necessary for the applicant and the Council to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to secure payment of the contribution.

5.4 Strategic Planning Officer There are no land use policy concerns. As there are no onsite communal facilities provided in the proposed student accommodation, an off site contribution of £410 per person would be required. Based on the information given we would request a contribution of £114,390. This is calculated on the following basis: 279 one bedroom student accommodations: (£410pp) 410 x 279 = £114,390

5.5 Highways (Drainage)

The applicant has indicated an intention to discharge surface water that will be generated by the proposed development to a 'Main' (Public) Sewer and it is not clear whether the use of infiltration techniques such as soakaway drainage has been investigated. Conditions to secure such investigation and a comprehensive drainage scheme for the site are requested.

5.6 Highways (Waste)

The highways officer had concerns over collection vehicle manoeuvring in respect of the original intention to service the site from Castle Lane. The intent under the revised scheme is to service the development from Oxford

35

St. and further comments are awaited, but would appear to alleviate any concerns.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES

6.1 South Wales Police (Architectural Liaison): South Wales Police have no objection but do have concerns that this accommodation is aimed at a potentially vulnerable group of people (students) and is located in a high crime rate area close to City Road where there are high incidents of anti-social behaviour and assault. There is there a need to ensure that this building if approved is built to recognised standards in terms of security and safety such as Secured by Design.

6.2 Welsh Water Advise of the likely location of a public sewer crossing the site; and make

several observations in respect of foul, surface and land drainage run off. These have been passed to the agent.

6.3 Western Power Advise of the likely location of electrical apparatus in the vicinity of the site and advise care should be taken and safe working practices adhered to.

7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Former and current Local Members have been consulted on the proposals.

No representations have been received. Neighbouring occupiers have been consulted and the proposals have been advertised on site and in the press.

7.2 Objections/Concerns have been received from residents/interests at 3b, 6,

and 8 Southey Street; 6 Wordsworth Ave; 10 and 55 Four Elms Court; 6 Vere St; 10 Woodland Place; 1 Cowper Place; 1, 5 and 6 Cowper Court; 11 Roden Court, and from 3 e-mail accounts (one passed on by former Cllr. Rodney Berman).

The majority of objections/concerns relate to inadequate parking provision to

serve the development and feared resultant overspill parking in nearby side streets; but also to Narrow Street widths for service vehicles; traffic congestion and inadequate manoeuvring space; conflict of use with vehicle movements associated with existing commercial operations in the area; Scale of the building; Overshadowing; Privacy; Overlooking; Overbearing impact; noise and chaos from young boisterous people in conflict with elderly residential accommodation; exacerbation of anti-social behaviour in Castle Lane; exacerbation of alcohol related problems in City Road, and proximity of Wetherspoons and the Old Poets Corner; increased footfall /noise and

36

disturbance cause by access on Oxford St; alternative use/lettings over summer break; not possible to guarantee post-grad or foreign student occupation; unnecessary accommodation; site more suited to retirement apartments; impact on the character of the conservation area; excessive burden on utilities (water, gas, drainage, electricity)

An e-mail commentator supports the proposal, in principle, but would

encourage a reduction in numbers to circa 200 students in a three storey building.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 Land Use

Whilst the use applied for is a ‘sui-generis’ use (not falling within any defined use class), it is similar in most respects to a residential use. Historically there has been no objection in principle to residential use of the site which has been long established (07/02117/C - 05/541 and 05/542). The application site falls within the City Road area as defined in the City of Cardiff Local Plan. As such, Policy 40 of the Local Plan and Policy 2.36 of the deposit UDP apply. Residential development is favoured in the City Road Area under Policy 40 of the Local Plan. Policy 2.36 of the deposit UDP allows residential uses in the City Road area subject to consideration of harm to the shopping frontages or the shopping role and character of the centre. Given that the site does not front City Road and would not result in the loss of shopping floorspace, it would be difficult to argue that the proposal for an ancillary café within the development would have an adverse impact on shopping frontages or harm the shopping character of the centre. The proposal therefore raises no strategic land use concerns.

8.2 Parking

It is acknowledged that the principal concern of neighbours is the perceived inadequacy of parking provision to serve the development of 279 bedspaces. However the application site is in a highly accessible location and is easily accessed by foot, cycle, bus and train. The proposed development of the site for student residential use would serve to minimise the need to travel to the university by vehicle, and occupiers would benefit from a wide range of shops services and facilities within walking distance of the site. There are bus stops

37

in City Road and Newport Rd, nearby rail connections would allow rail access to Cardiff Bay and Cardiff Central and onto the National Rail network. The site is ideally placed to accommodate residential accommodation without the need for non operation car parking provision and accords with both national and local sustainable transport agendas in this respect.

As amended, the site would provide vehicle parking spaces for operational parking needs only (14 spaces including 1 disabled space). Given the highly sustainable location, this would accord with the Council’s aims of promoting development which is not reliant on car based transport. It is hoped that the absolute absence of resident car parking space, and traffic order restrictions locally, will discourage the majority of residents from car ownership / parking within the vicinity.

8.3 Access The Transportation Officer’s comments are noted, and the upgrading and modifications of the local highway network to accommodate the development have been considered against the relevant CIL criteria and have been considered to meet relevant tests, in that they are considered by the planning officer to be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to it; and reasonable and proportionate in scale and kind to the proposal.

In terms of access, initial proposals relied on servicing the development from Castle Lane. This has now been abandoned and access is now proposed off Oxford Street. This has raised some objection from a resident in Roden Court in respect of increasing activity along Oxford St, by service vehicles and cycles accessing the undercroft cycle store, and by students on foot who would likely use the Oxford St. entrance to access their bedsit accommodation in the SE corner of the development. However it is not considered that such use should result in any undue disturbance if service vehicles were restricted to within certain hours and because other entrances to the accommodation are available and promoted. (The principal entrance to the majority of bedspaces would be from Vere Street).

8.4 Provision for Cyclists The development allows for the provision of 142 on site cycle parking spaces which accords with current SPG and is considered acceptable

8.5 Design and Aesthetic Quality The complex is based on a courtyard arrangement of perimeter blocks with central amenity area. This is supported as it allows the incorporation of an

38

amenity area into the development and an attractive living environment for residents. The massing of the blocks is very similar to the previous approved schemes of flatted development and would be principally of four storey height. The blocks are shown as being generally over a meter lower (11.2m) than the previously approved development (12.6m) for the majority of the length of the building; but would be a little higher (12.7m) at its Vere St. end in comparison to that previously approved (11.3m). This is not objected to in design terms. Externally the building would be finished in white render above a Staffordshire blue brick plinth and with primary red blue and yellow infill panels. The internal courtyard would be similarly finished with added panels of Staffordshire blue brick at higher levels. The inner courtyard would be landscaped in a mixture of hard and soft materials and would contain managed tree planting. The upper elements of the roofscape would be in vertical silver grey aluminium shingles; and louvers, fenestration, and doors would be in dark grey powder coated aluminium. The aesthetic of the building is supported in the given context.

The building will be required to meet extant sustainability standards and

achieve a ‘Very Good’ BREEAM rating or equivalent. This is appropriate. 8.6 Historic Environment

It is not considered that the proposal built form would detract from the Wordsworth Avenue Conservation Area given the distance from its boundary and presence of other intervening buildings.

8.7 Residential Open Space Requirement Under Policy 31 of the Local Plan and SPG, as no recreation / play space is being provided on-site, the developer is required to make a financial contribution, secured through a Section 106 Legal Agreement, towards the provision of open space off-site or the improvement of existing open space in the locality. Using the residential breakdown provided in the application, the financial contribution required is £147,816.

The requested contribution is considered compliant with the relevant CIL tests.

39

8.8 Residential Amenity

The Planning Officer notes a number of objections on grounds of scale, privacy, loss of light, light pollution and noise nuisance.

8.9 Scale In the given context of traditional three storey properties on City Road, taller developments along Newport Rd and the commercial nature of surrounding development, a four storey development is not considered excessive, and sufficiently far away from residential properties in Roden Court (17m), Woodland Place (28m), Wordsworth Avenue (84m) and Cowper Place (25m), not to result in any unduly adverse impacts on enjoyment of those properties by residents in respect of outlook. Given the nature of the surrounding built environment and past planning approvals it would be extremely difficult to justify a refusal of permission in terms of scale as the building is generally lower than those previously approved.

8.10 Overshadowing/Privacy

Similarly, these buildings were considered unlikely to result in significant overshadowing of residential properties around the site, and, as this building is generally lower its impact would be less. It is considered very unlikely that the development would reduce the amount of daylight receipt to residential accommodation which would warrant refusal of the scheme. In response to the specific concerns raised by the owner of “Michael Powell Art”, 6 Vere Street, it is accepted that the building would deny morning sunlight to the Castle Lane elevation of 6 Vere Street but this is currently a commercial property and has alternative windows in the Vere Street elevation. It is also noted that the planning permission 07/883/C for the conversion of the property to two flats with roof garden, granted in June 2007, has now expired without implementation. Any future development proposals at 6 Vere Street would need to be considered on their relative merits in the context of any future development. Notwithstanding this however, it is recognised that the two first floor and upper level windows in that property would be within 4m of windows within the new accommodation; accordingly the architect has been asked to re-orientate/rearrange internal layouts to mitigate against this overlooking, as alternatively an obscure/privacy glazing condition would be required and is otherwise recommended.

40

The planning officer also notes a number of other access doors and windows at ground and upper floor levels in the elevation of properties backing onto Castle Lane, which the architect has been asked to address in respect of modifications to internal layout and window orientations However these matters are considered capable of resolution post decision if controlled by planning condition.

8.11 Light Pollution A resident of Cowper Court has commented that night time illumination from Maplins on City Road is sometimes irritating at a distance of some 128m from windows in their property and is concerned that the new development which, at 25m away, is much closer, will be proportionately worse and unacceptable. The planning officer accepts that the new proposals will bring windows in habitable rooms significantly closer to Cowper Court than the commercial windows of retail shops in City Road, however, at a distance of 25m this is not considered unreasonable or uncommon in the context of privacy distances of circa 21m between habitable room windows in new build developments.

8.12 Noise Nuisance The proposal includes an ancillary A3 coffee shop use adjacent to its reception area accessed from Vere Street. Provided this were conditioned to be restricted to an ancillary use, and with curtailment of operational hours this is not considered an objectionable facility. Hours of servicing can also be appropriately controlled by planning condition. It is accepted that students are more likely to participate in the late night economy than occupants of other types of residential accommodation, and perhaps be more likely to return home at later hours than occupants of general needs or retirement accommodation. However it is anticipated that most students would be returning on foot, and noted that the principal entrance to the complex is positioned well away from any existing residence. It is also noted that City Road itself offers an existing late night economy/activity and it is not considered likely that the proposed complex of student residences would produce a level of noise or disturbance in excess of that already experienced in the area. This would similarly apply during daytime hours where general traffic noise an activity in city road would be unlikely to be exceeded by general activities within the accommodation.

41

8.13 Community Facilities The SPG for ‘Community Facilities and Residential Development’ was formally adopted by Council on 22nd March 2007. The SPG was adopted to provide guidance on national and local planning policy which highlights the importance of the planning system in ensuring that the infrastructure on which communities depend is adequate to accommodate proposed development. Policy 21 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (adopted January 1996) supports the provision of community facilities as part of new residential developments. It is also in accord with Planning Policy Wales which supports the negotiation of planning obligations and states “Contributions from developers may be used to offset negative consequences of development, to help meet local needs, or to secure benefits which will make development more sustainable”. The development manager accepts the comments of the strategic planning officer in respect of the fact that a development proposing a significant increase in population, such as this, would create pressures on existing local facilities that need to be offset via financial contribution. The requested contribution is therefore considered compliant with the relevant CIL tests. It is understood that the requested sum of £114,390 might be used to support and improve existing facilities at the Council’s own Plasnewydd Community Centre on Shakespeare Street; at the Mackintosh Sports and Social club and the Gate Arts and Community Centre on Keppoch Street, all of which are likely to experience added pressure as a result of the new population. This would seem appropriate.

8.14 Other Issues ‘The site would be more suitable for retirement or family housing’ No such proposals have been put forward. ‘There is no guarantee of occupation by post graduate students or that the accommodation would be alternatively occupied in summer break’. The application description is specific in respect of the use of the development and planning permission would be required for any alternative use not of the same character.

‘Excessive burden on utilities’

None of the utility providers have suggested that the development would have any adverse effect on supply. Foul and surface water drainage are subject of detailed approval by means of planning condition.

42

9. SECTION 106 MATTERS

9.1 Section 106 Agreement

Planning Permission is only recommended to be Granted subject to the developer entering into a binding legal agreement with the local planning authority under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to cover the following: Agreement that the site is to be used for student accommodation only. The payment of a contribution of £3,120 for the modification of traffic orders in the locality. The payment of a contribution of £147,816 for the provision/maintenance of open space in the locality. The payment of a contribution of £114,390 for the procurement/support of community facilities within the area.

9.2 Grampian Provisions The submission and implementation of a scheme of highway improvements/public realm enhancements to be approved by the local planning authority prior to the commencement of development; to be implemented in full prior to the occupation of any accommodation approved by this permission can be secured by means of Grampian condition as the affected land is within the Council’s control and need not be part of the S106 legal agreement.

10. SUMMARY

10.1 The development is considered a positive undertaking in respect of the redevelopment of a long term vacant site; to provide a use which will contribute to the ongoing economy of the area and of the city generally, and to be ideally geographically placed to realise a highly sustainable form of accommodation without need for any reliance on car based transport.

10.2 It is also recognised that the Plasnewydd ward comes under development

pressure for dwellinghouse conversion, for both student accommodation and general needs flat conversions. The current proposal could help reduce pressure on this matter.

43

10.3 The provision of 279 bedspaces would effectively equate to the conversion of approximately 45 properties to HMOs or to 90 dwellinghouses converted to 3 flats units which might otherwise be used as family accommodation.

10.4 The Granting of Planning Permission is recommended

44

45

AMENDED PLAN 12/0209/DCI 19.07.2012

46

AMENDED PLAN 12/0309/DCI 19.07.2012

47

OXFORD STREET VERE STREET

48

LOCAL MEMBER, MP AND AM OBJECTIONS COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/00765/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 31/05/2012 ED: CATHAYS APP: TYPE: Variation of conditions APPLICANT: Lidl Uk GmbH LOCATION: LIDL FOODSTORE, MAINDY ROAD, CATHAYS, CARDIFF, CF24

4HQ PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION 1 OF PLANNING PERMISSION

10/00434/C TO READ "THE ARRIVAL MANOEVRING UNLOADING AND DEPARTURE OF DELIVERY VEHICLES SHALL ONLY TAKE PLACE BETWEEN 0800 HRS AND 2200 HRS MONDAY TO SATURDAY AND 1000 HRS AND 1600 HRS SUNDAYS

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED for ‘the erection of single storey foodstore with associated car parking’, approved under planning permission 03/01352/C and 10/00434/C, without complying with condition 1 previously imposed on planning permission 10/00434/C and without complying with conditions 17 and 23 previously imposed on planning permission 03/01352/C, but subject to the other conditions imposed therein, so far as the same are still subsisting and capable of taking effect, and subject to the following replacement condition (condition 1) and new conditions: 1. The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles

shall take place only between 0800 and 2200 hours on Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 6 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays. No refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running, shall be parked on the site except between 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 6 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.

2. Prior to the submission of any application to remove or vary condition 1

above, a noise assessment report based on environmental noise measurements undertaken at the application site during the 6 month trial period shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority to allow the impact of Sunday deliveries to be comprehensively assessed. The noise assessment methodology shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of the assessment thereafter and undertaken in accordance with the agreed methodology.

49

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.

3. The number of vehicle deliveries on Sundays shall be limited to 2.

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.

4. The engine of the delivery vehicles shall be switched off during

unloading of the delivery. For the avoidance of doubt, this switching of shall not apply to the refrigeration units in order to maintain the chill chain. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of occupiers of other premises in the vicinity are protected.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 This is an application for the variation of condition 1 attached to planning

permission 10/434c which was granted 13/10/2010 on appeal. Condition 1 of planning permission 10/434c states that:

“The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles shall take place only between 0800 and 2200 hours on Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 12 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays. No refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running, shall be parked on the site except between 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 12 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays.”

1.2 Amongst other things, the above condition allowed for Sunday deliveries to take place between 1000 and 1600 hours for a temporary 12 month period only until 13/10/2011.

1.3 Planning application 12/00765dci proposes to vary condition 1 of planning

permission 10/434c to read: “The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles shall only take place between 0800 hrs and 2200 hrs Monday to Saturday and 1000 hrs and 1600 hrs Sundays.”

1.4 In so doing, it seeks to allow Sunday deliveries between 1000 and 1600 hours

on a permanent basis. It also seeks to remove the restrictions on the parking on site of refrigerated vehicles with refrigerated units running by removing the second sentence from condition 1 of pp 10/434c.

1.5 The application is supported by a Design and Access Statement and a Noise

Assessment. The DAS notes that Lidl trades 7 days a week, yet the restriction limits deliveries to only 6 days and that during the weekend Lidl’s fresh stock supplies become depleted to the extent that an additional Sunday delivery is required. As a result, additional stock has to be held at the store, in advance of Sunday, which results in stock quality issues. Preventing Sunday deliveries is also noted to have significant operational, logistical and cost

50

implications not only for Lidl but also the environment, namely, additional delivery vehicles and additional store staff vehicle journeys. The Noise Assessment notes that the assessment is based on environmental noise measurements undertaken at a location representative of the closest noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the site.

1.6 Additional information was submitted by Innovate Accoustics, in response to

the initial concerns from Pollution Control confirming: i. The source data was gathered from a store, operated on an identical

basis, but by another retailer. It was not felt appropriate to include the specific origins of this source data, suffice to say that the delivery protocol is identical, with acoustically similar equipment.

ii. A breakdown of generated noise (in terms of LAeq) from each discrete event/activity is provided in Table 5 of the submitted report. The statistics alluded to in Figure 4 (graphical display) were measured at a distance of 2-metres from source, at the rear aperture of the delivery vehicle. In the case of this store, the delivery vehicle itself entirely screens sound from this source from propagating towards the sensitive receptors and is subsequently, acoustically insignificant in comparison to the acoustic energy produced during the manoeuvring of the vehicle, as demonstrated in Table 5 (although a very conservative level of barrier attenuation, of only 5dB has been allowed for in the prediction).

iii. Lidl are prepared to accept a condition limiting deliveries during the extension application period to no more than 1 vehicle in any hour and no more than 2 during the entire extension period of 10am to 4pm on a Sunday. They advise that they can ensure that the engine of the tractor unit is switched off prior to unloading (which can be conditioned if necessary), but that the chiller units must remain operational (unless the last delivery of the day for that particular delivery vehicle), in order to maintain the chill chain and ensure that remaining foodstuffs do not spoil. It is stated that the acoustically attenuated refrigeration units typically operated by Lidl are considered to be acoustically insignificant in the context of the acoustic energy generated by the delivery manoeuvre, hence, their contribution not being considered separately within the submitted report on noise.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site relates to the existing Lidl foodstore located on the corner

of Maindy Road and Cathays Terrace. Vehicular access and the main pedestrian access are located off Maindy Road on the NE elevation of the site, in close proximity to a coffee shop which also fronts onto Cathays Terrace. The service bay for the Lidl store is located adjacent to the NW boundary of the site, approximately 50m from the front boundary of the nearest residential properties on Maindy Road. The University Optometry building is located to the NW, with the railway line forming a physical barrier to the SW.

51

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 00/2354w – ‘Erection of single storey food store with 95 car parking spaces’ –

permission granted 25/04/2003, subject to various conditions including condition 17 preventing Sunday deliveries:

The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles shall take place only between 0800 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday. No refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running, shall be parked on the site except between 0800 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of nearby residential occupiers are protected

03/1352c – ‘Erection of single storey foodstore with associated car parking’ - permission granted 04/11/2003, subject to various conditions including condition 17 preventing Sunday deliveries:

The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles shall take place only between 0800 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday. No refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running, shall be parked on the site except between 0800 hours and 2200 hours Monday to Saturday. Reason: To ensure that the amenities of nearby residential occupiers are protected

and condition 23, restricting opening hours. 10/434c – ‘Variation of conditions 17 and 23 of planning permission 03/1352c (erection of single storey foodstore with associated car parking) to allow the arrival, manoeuvring , unloading and departure of delivery vehicles between 1000 hours and 1600 hours on Sundays in addition to 0800 - 2200 on Mondays-Saturdays and to vary opening hours from 0800 - 2000 to: 0800 - 2200 hours on Mondays to Saturdays, and from: 1100 - 1700, to: 1000 - 1600 hours on Sundays’ – planning permission refused 10/06/2010 on grounds of unacceptable noise nuisance for residential occupiers, but subsequently allowed on appeal 13/10/2010, subject to the following conditions: 1. The arrival, manoeuvring, unloading and departure of delivery vehicles

shall take place only between 0800 and 2200 hours on Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 12 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays. No refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running, shall be parked on the site except between 0800 and 2200 hours Monday to Saturdays, and for a temporary period until 12 months from the date of this decision between 1000 and 1600 hours on Sundays.

2. The shop hereby permitted shall not trade outside the following hours:

0800 to 2200 hours Monday to Saturdays and 1000 to 1600 hours on Sundays.

3.2 In his decision letter, the Inspector raised some concerns over Sunday

deliveries, justifying the 12 month trial period for Sunday deliveries as follows: ‘In the absence of empirical data on background noise levels on Sundays there is insufficient information to gauge whether deliveries

52

would be a cause of concern even over the short duration they may be present on the site because of the high tonal character of a HGV lorry reversing. I therefore agree with the Council in part, in balancing these factors that the appeal is allowed, but for a temporary trial run period to assess the implications of Sunday deliveries based on an appropriate noise assessment at the relevant time for re-submission’ (para 8). ‘I therefore conclude that the extended hours of opening and the introduction of store deliveries on Sundays is not harmful to the living conditions of nearby residents in relation to noise and disturbance, but that the situation on Sunday deliveries is monitored for a trial period and supported by appropriate noise assessments upon re-submission (para 9). ‘The condition imposing a trial period on Sunday deliveries is needed to assess its impact in relation to the background noise climate’ (para 10).

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 The site is unallocated on the City of Cardiff Local Plan Proposals Map. 4.2 Planning Policy Wales (Edition 4, February 2011) 4.3 Planning Policy Wales TAN 11: Noise 4.4 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan

Policy 2.24 – Residential amenity Policy 2.64 – Air, noise and light pollution

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 The Operational Manager (Transportation) has no comment.

5.2 The Operational Manager (Pollution Control) initially advised that:

i. Whilst the noise assessment report is detailed, it is unclear as to the location of the source data, as it appears this was taken off site from another location. A site specific noise survey would be best to ensure all elements of the site are taken into consideration when assessing the potential disturbance

ii. I would also like to see a breakdown of short term LAeq for the individual elements of the deliver and the comparisons of this against the L90 background measurement. This will enable a closer comparison of individual elements of the delivery process. I am concerned as the peaks indicated on the graphical display clearly identify high level of peak noise and it will be this noise breakout that leads to the cause of complaint. The SEL measurements do go someway to identify the noise associated with certain individual events but are difficult to form a suitable comparison when the delivery process can be up to 1hour.

iii. If mindful for granting this application upon receipt of further documentation then a noise management plan detailing the control of

53

engine noise and refrigeration units will need to be detailed and controlled it would also need to state the required number of perceived deliveries as the potential for one an hour between the 1000 – 1600 window would equate to significant disturbance. A reduced delivery schedule, where no further delivery past a terminal hour of 14.00 may be more acceptable.

5.3 Following receipt of the additional information, set out in para 1.6 above,

Pollution Control confirmed their satisfaction with the additional information and recommended conditions limiting the number of deliveries to 2 and requiring vehicle engine switch off (but not chiller unit) during deliveries.

5.4 In responding to the possibility of a temporary consent to allow for a site

specific noise assessment to be provided, Pollution Control advised that, a site specific noise assessment by the applicants would provide the necessary information and detail to make an informed decision in this case.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 None. 7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Jenny Willott MP objects to the application for the following reasons:

i. Detrimental effect on local residents ii. The original application was granted on the proviso that no deliveries

were to take place on a Sunday. The loading bay is situated at the point closest to the houses and the delivery vehicles cause considerable amounts of noise six days a week and particularly when it involves refrigerated vehicles, causing the houses to vibrate. It is unfair to expect residents to put up with this 7 days a week

iii. The store has been operating without Sunday deliveries for some time and apparently only made Sunday deliveries for 6 weeks, calling the need for Sunday deliveries into question.

7.2 Jenny Rathbone AM objects to the application for the following reasons:

i. The original planning permission banned Sunday deliveries in recognition of the disruption to residents, which Lidl were aware of in developing the site

ii. Disturbance to residents arising from the proximity of the loading bay, deliveries taking over an hour to unload, refrigerated units running while lorries are being unloaded and breaches of planning conditions

iii. Lidl has operated for most of its 10 years without Sunday deliveries and residents shouldn’t face further disruption for Lidl’s convenience who built the supermarket fully aware of the conditions

iv. Any conditions imposed are likely to be eroded over time given previous breaches of delivery conditions

v. She is unaware of any monitoring of the trial period, other than consistent complaints from residents and the Neighbourhood Watch Team. Reports her own complaints regarding: the breach of planning

54

conditions by undertaking Sunday deliveries outside of the trial period and the noise from the refrigerated lorry

7.3 Cllrs Weaver, Merry and Knight object to the application for the following

reasons: i. Harm to resident’s qualify of life due to unacceptable noise nuisance

from deliveries, not in keeping with residential nature of Maindy Road, with residents reporting that noise can be heard in their homes, particularly when deliveries involve a refrigeration unit

ii. Additional traffic noise from lorries iii. Sundays is currently the one day when residents have respite from the

noise iv. Residents have made complaints to Planning regarding breaches of the

permission for delivery hours, reporting both early morning deliveries (before 8am) and deliveries on Sunday. (Historic correspondence from a local resident was submitted which reported breaches and other noise concerns.)

v. Notes that a previous application to allow Sunday deliveries was rejected on grounds of unacceptable noise nuisance and the situation has not changed to justify a different outcome this time

vi. Many residents object to the proposal, with many opposed after experiencing the trial period, as evidenced by petition

vii. Lidl have successfully traded for a number of years without Sunday deliveries and the advantages to Lidl should not outweigh the right of residents to a decent quality of life and respite from noise and intrusion.

7.4 Cllr Clark objects to the application on the following grounds:

i. Noise disturbance, well above the 10 decibel level deemed grounds for complaint. Residents deserve one day of peace each week, taking into account existing noise disturbance by refrigerated delivery lorries, 0800 to 2200 Monday to Saturday, causing homes to vibrate, against background of disturbance from building works

ii. The assessment of noise during the trial period does not seem to have been made. The noise assessment is invalid as it was undertaken after the trial period and it is not clear if the assessment is based on the Maindy Road store. The report is also inaccurate in with regards Sunday opening (section 4.1)

iii. Lidl have been making illegal deliveries in breach of their planning conditions.

iv. It needs to be clarified what has changed between 2003 to 2012 to now justify Sunday deliveries

v. Concerns raised regarding the withdrawal of an initial objection re 10/434c from the Pollution Control team and statements from that team in the Planning Committee report that there had not been ‘complaints regarding delivery noise to the store’, when complaints had been made.

vi. Concerns were raised by residents following the 2010 Planning Committee decision, with one resident meeting an officer from the Council’s Pollution Control service on 18 June 2010 to raise concerns about noise from delivery lorries, where the officer advised the resident

55

to complete a form as evidence of the problems, which was duly completed with a covering letter 8 July 2010.

vii. Local residents wrote to the Planning Inspector on 10 November 2010 to ask what criteria would be used for the 12 month trial period, what form the monitoring would take and who would be responsible for the monitoring. The Inspector advised that the Council was responsible for planning matters on the Lidl site and advised the resident to contact the planning department to seek clarification. The resident was subsequently advised by the Council that ‘the site will not be monitored by the Local Planning Authority’.

viii. It is understood that very few deliveries were made on Sundays during the trial period, questioning the necessity of Sunday deliveries.

ix. The pictures of Lidl in the DAS do not reflect how close the store is to residential properties

x. Lidl’s planning application says that no adverse third party comments were received over the 12 month period, which is not true

xi. Lidl do not always act in a neighbourly way, recently using a noisy power spray on their premises at 6am.

7.5 33 neighbouring occupiers and local residents have been consulted, and the

application advertised by means of a press and site notice. 13 letters of objection were received from the occupiers of 14, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28, 30, 36, 133 Maindy Rd, 75 Beatty Av, 53 Talygarn St, 85 Heol Gabriel, 70 St Angela Rd which raised the following concerns: i. Resulting increase in number of huge lorries, already increased from the

construction site in Maindy Rd ii. Harm to resident’s living conditions from delivery noise and other noise

disturbance on the site iii. Particular concerns over noise from the delivery vehicle refrigeration

units iv. Not unreasonable to have one day of peace and quiet v. Conditions have been previously breached

7.6 A petition of objection containing 134 signatures was submitted from ‘members of the N.H.W Group for the whole of Maindy Road’ to register objection to the proposal to allow Sunday deliveries, noting that Lidl chose to built a store in a residential area and must give due consideration to the residents.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 The main issues are whether the introduction of Sunday deliveries between

1000hrs and 1600hrs on a permanent basis and removal of restrictions on refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running would cause unacceptable impact on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, as a result of noise disturbance, and impact on highway safety. Impact on the living conditions of nearby occupiers

8.2 Pollution Control have been consulted and, following the receipt of additional information, have raised no objection, subject to recommended conditions to

56

limit the number of deliveries to 2 and to require delivery vehicle engines to be switched off.

8.3 The representations from the MP, AM, local members and residents, including

the 134 signature strong petition, are noted. It is noted that permission 03/1352c contained a condition, condition 17, that prevented Sunday deliveries in order to protect residential amenity. The condition as requested by the Pollution Control section at the time. It is also noted that the Inspector, in considering the appeal against refusal of application 10/434c, allowed Sunday deliveries for a 12 month temporary period only and specifically restricted the parking on site of refrigerated vehicles with refrigeration units running outside of the stated delivery hours. However, given that there is no objection from the Council’s Pollution Control section, it would be difficult to support a refusal of planning permission on the grounds of a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring occupiers arising from noise and disturbance.

8.4 It is notable, however, that the Inspector specifically allowed the appeal for a

temporary trial run period only to assess the implications of Sunday deliveries based on an appropriate noise assessment at the relevant time for re-submission. Whilst a noise assessment has been submitted with the application, it is not site specific, with the source data gathered from a store operated in another location by another retailer. Pollution Control initially advised that a site specific survey would be best to ensure all elements of the site are taken into consideration, although they did not subsequently object to the application. They, however, concur that a site specific test would provide the necessary information for an informed decision. Each application should be determined on its individual merits and it is considered that a site specific survey would ensure that all elements of the site are taken into consideration when assessing the potential disturbance. Taking the above factors into consideration, it is recommended that permission be granted for a temporary 6 month trial run period to assess the implications of Sunday deliveries based on an appropriate and site specific noise assessment to be undertaken by the Applicant in the event of any re-submission. A condition is, therefore, also recommended to require a site specific noise assessment to be submitted by the Applicant on re-submission. Conditions are also recommended to limit deliveries on a Sunday to a maximum of 2 and to require the engines of delivery vehicles to be switched off during deliveries, to further protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Impact on highway safety

8.5 Notwithstanding the objections raised by third parties, the impact on traffic and highway safety would be acceptable, taking into consideration the lack of objection from the Operational Manager Transportation and the recommended condition to limit the number of Sunday deliveries to 2.

Equalities Impact Assessment:

8.6 In terms of inclusive access and the public sector equality duty (Section 149 Equality Act), there will be no apparent abnormal differential impact on relevant equality strands. No physical alterations are proposed to the access

57

arrangements and there will not be any changes to store opening hours. The recommended conditions will help protect the living conditions of all neighbouring occupiers.

8.7 It is recommended that permission be granted, subject to conditions.

58

59

COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/01045/DCI APPLICATION DATE: 26/06/2012 ED: BUTETOWN APP: TYPE: Variation of conditions APPLICANT: Top Gun Fish & Chip Company Ltd LOCATION: UNIT 1, QUAYSIDE, BUTE CRESCENT, CARDIFF BAY PROPOSAL: VARIATION OF CONDITION 7 OF PLANNING PERMISSION

09/01490/C TO ALLOW THE SALE OF HOT FOOD FOR CONSUMPTION OFF THE PREMISES LIMITED TO FISH AND CHIPS

___________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. The proposed takeaway use, located adjacent to a busy road junction,

with no opportunities for short term parking/waiting is likely to generate occurrences of unsafe short term parking/waiting to the detriment of highway safety contrary to the requirements of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses’ 1996.

2. The proposed takeaway use is likely to result in unacceptable noise

and disturbance to adjacent residential occupiers, contrary to the provisions of the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Restaurants, Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses’ 1996.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 A full application for the proposed variation of condition 7 attached to planning

permission 09/1409C which removes the ability for any of the approved ground floor commercial units of this building to sell hot food for consumption off the premises, to allow takeaway sales from Unit 1 (limited to Fish and Chips).

1.2 The application is supported by a ‘Statement of Intent’ from the applicant that

indicates his intention to operate the premises predominantly as a Fish & Chip restaurant for up to 42 patrons, with the proposed takeaway sales being ancillary to that operation. It is further advised that the sale of food for consumption off the premises will cease at 21:00hrs. (The existing consent for the use of the premises for Class A3 (Food & Drink) purposes allows opening to 23:00hrs

60

1.3 Condition 7 of planning permission 09/1490C states:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no sale of hot food for consumption off the premises shall take place from the premises.”

1.4 The application makes the following suggestion in respect of the variation of

condition 7:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987(or an Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) the sale of any hot food for consumption off the premises shall be limited to the sale of fish and chips only, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason. To ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the area.”

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The site is a ground floor commercial unit set below a multi storey block of

flats (73no.) that has consent for uses under Class A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and A3 (Food and Drink).

2.2 Unit 1 has two points of access, one directly off the corner of the unit, fronting

the crossroad junction of James Street/Bute Place/Bute Street, and a second further along the frontage to Bute Street.

2.3 The site is set on the fringe of the Mermaid Quay mixed use

commercial/leisure/residential area. 3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 06/975C – 88 flats over 7 storeys with ground floor A1, A2 and A3 use –

Approved. 09/1490C – 73 flats over 7 storeys with ground floor parking and retail use

(A1/A2/A3) with pavement side delivery bay – Approved. 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 Relevant National Planning Guidance: Planning Policy Wales (2011) TAN 11: Noise TAN 18: Transport TAN 21: Waste Circular 16/94: Planning Out Crime

61

4.2 Relevant City of Cardiff Local Plan policies: 17: Parking & Servicing Facilities 4.3 Relevant Deposit Unitary Development Plan (October 2003) policies: 2.24: Residential Amenity 2.57: Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements 2.74: Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development 4.4 Relevant Supplementary Planning Guidance: Restaurants, Takeaways and other Food & Drink Uses (June 1996) Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007) Access, circulation and parking requirements (January, 2010) 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 Pollution Control

The Pollution Control Manager (Noise and Air) makes the following comments: “I do not wish to object to the proposed variation in the wording of Condition 7 of planning consent 09/01490/C.

In reaching this view Pollution Control has considered:

1. the nature of the locality 2. the number of premises already offering takeaway services (later than

being applied for in this case) 3. the number of residents already living close to/above such premises. 4. that the proposed takeaway sales would be ancillary to the main use

which already has A3 consent. 5. the lack complaint history in the area associated with takeaway sales.

Given the above it is our view that couldn’t defend an objection in the event of an appeal should consent not be granted.

Should the change in wording be approved, I recommend that the wording of a revised condition be as proposed thereby limiting takeaway sales to 9:00pm.”

5.2 Waste Management The Waste Manager comments:

“The sale of hot food off the premises may result in an increased in litter in the immediate area, as a result, a litter bin should be provided by the applicant. It should be placed just outside the premise whilst the shop is open, and

62

returned to the premise while the shop is closed. It is the responsibility of the applicant to empty and maintain this bin, likewise, clear any litter within a 50 metre radius that can be attributed to the property (Street Litter Control Notice, S93, Environment Protection Act 1990).”

It is further advised that waste must not be stored on the highway, residential and commercial waste must not be mixed and a commercial contract for the collection of the waste is required.

5.3 Transport The Operational manager Transportation objects to the proposals, making the

following comments:

I would confirm that the above submission has been assessed and that I object to the application to allow the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises (take-away use).

“In considering the application it is noted that the premises in situated on the corner of Bute Place and Bute Street, at the junction with James Street. As such the site is located directly on a busy signal controlled junction that has pedestrian crossing facilities in all four arms; cycle approach lanes and advanced stop lines on three arms; and parking restrictions for a minimum of circa 50m in all directions. In the absence of any kerbside space or other dedicated parking facility, the proposed take-away use is therefore likely to generate illegal short stay parking which will be detrimental to the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other vehicles using the junction.

It is also noted that the 4.4 of the ‘Restaurants, takeaways and other food and drink uses’ SPG confirms that proposals that might encourage short-stay parking near to junctions, traffic lights, crossings, etc. are unlikely to be acceptable. Accordingly the site location is considered entirely unsuitable for take-away use when examined in against the tests detailed in the adopted SPG.”

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 South Wales Police

The South Wales Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor makes the following comments: “This development is located in the area of Mermaid Quay which is one of the main centres for tourism, entertainment and leisure in the City of Cardiff. The Bay area continues to develop and grow attracting increasing numbers of people in both daytime and evenings. Crime in the Bay is considered to be generally high compared to many other parts of South Wales.

The site of the application for take away facilities is very close two public houses and a hotel and is situated underneath a residential block of flats.

63

South Wales Police have particular concern that given the proximity of 3 licensed premises less than 50 yards away, the provision of a Take Away facility could lead to conflict as people whom had consumed alcohol would migrate in the late evening into the take away facility and would result in conflict and disturbance. Any late opening of such a facility would also be likely to increase the noise and disturbance of residents.

South Wales Police would therefore wish to object to this application unless there is a condition placed on restricting hours off take away provision to ensure the facility closes well before people start to leave the public houses.

South Wales Police make the following recommendations

1 Permission for a take away facility is restricted in terms of opening

times of no later than 21:00hrs. 2 CCTV is installed to ensure evidential quality imagery is obtained as

people enter the premises and in any serving areas.” 7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Local Members have been notified and no comments have been received. 7.2 Adjacent Occupiers were notified in respect of the original submission and in

respect of the additional information later received. Three letters have been returned by the Royal Mail (2, 3 and 4 Bute Place).

31 individual letters of objection have been received from residents and

owners of the flats within the Quayside development. A further three letters of objection have been received from the ‘Quayside Residents Owner Group’ (2no.) representing the occupiers of 20 apartments and the Property Matters Group representing 26 owners (many of the owners/occupiers represented by third parties are duplicates of the individual letters).

The grounds for objection received from representations are:

• Noise/disturbance caused by patrons; • Intimidation/security concerns caused by drunks/undesired clientele in

close proximity to the entrance to the flats; • Smell nuisance from cooking fumes etc; • Devaluation of property due to presence of a chip shop in this luxury

residential block; • No need for another chip shop, Harry Ramsden’s is close by along with

another chip shop; • Increased instances of litter dropping (the occupier of 68 Quayside has

submitted photos of litter in the area); • Health & Safety issues around lack of available on street parking for

customers, potential for accidents; • No provision for delivery vehicles; • They would not have purchased their property if they had known that there

64

was a possibility that the rules relating to the ground floor units could be changed;

• If allowed, this would set an unwelcome precedent for further takeaway uses;

• Question why the Council has allowed the submission of additional information ‘at this late stage’ and given a restrictive time period for responses.

A further objection has been received from the developers of the ‘Quayside’ building, Bellway Homes. Their comments are: “Bellway Homes Wales & West object to the variation to condition 5 of planning permission 09/01490/c as the original condition was attached for a reason which was to protect the amenity of the area. Residents have bought the flats above the commercial units on the basis of the attached condition, it would therefore now be unreasonable to determine that a take away would not affect their amenity and the amenity of the area. The reason for the restriction on use in the first instance was to protect the residents from the negative elements that are associated with a take away business, namely smell, litter, late night noise, anti social behaviour. Residents have bought properties in the knowledge that the condition would protect them from this.” (Bellway have subsequently confirmed that the above objection should refer to condition 7, not condition 5).

8. ANALYSIS Background - previous planning permission (09/1490C) 8.1 Planning permission 09/1490C granted consent on the 18th January 2010 for

73 flats, with three ground floor commercial units with consent for uses within Class A1 (Shops), A2 (Financial and Professional Services) and A3 (Food and Drink). One unit is currently occupied by Sainsburys and two units (including the application site) are vacant.

8.2 Condition 5 of planning permission 09/1490C states:

“The ground floor commercial units hereby approved shall only be used for purposes within Use Classes A1 or A2, or as a café or restaurant, but for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Class A3 of the Schedule to the Town & Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 or in any provision equivalent to that Class or in any statutory instrument amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order). Reason. Other uses within Use Class A3 cold prejudice the amenities of the area.”

8.3 The applicant, in the ‘Statement of Intent’ dated 11th July 2012 advises that

the premises are to be used as a fish and chip restaurant, serving up to 42 patrons.

65

In this case, it is considered that the operation of the application site for the provision of a fish and chip restaurant is consistent with the extant consent, subject to the appropriate discharge of relevant conditions attached to planning permission 09/1490C (fume extraction, soundproofing, plant noise etc.).

Amenity Issues 8.4 In terms of the impact on residential amenity, the Council’s Pollution Control

section have assessed the application having regard for a number of criteria (as indicated in para. 5.1 above) and consider that they could not sustain refusal of consent in terms of noise disturbance.

8.5 However, it should be noted that the reason for the imposition of condition 7

(no takeaway sales) on the original application and the later submission (06/957C and 09/1490C respectively) was to ‘ensure that the use of the premises does not prejudice the amenities of the area’. In this respect, there has been concern from the outset of the development in 2006 that a ‘takeaway’ element could give rise to disturbance for the neighbouring residential development and the wider area.

It is also reasonable to assume that the current residents of the development

above the application premises purchased their properties in the knowledge of the restriction on the Class A3 use, and with a certain expectation of residential amenity. Whilst this cannot automatically prohibit an application to remove the ‘takeaway’ condition, the clear view of the residential occupants is that their amenity would be adversely affected by the current proposal, even with the reduced hours of operation.

8.6 Notwithstanding the comments of the Council’s Pollution Control Manager

above, concern was expressed on the original application (06/957C) on the use, with a recommendation to restrict the operation to a café/restaurant use, and then again on the 2009 application (09/1490C), but only in respect of hours of opening, delivery times and plant noise.

On balance, the Local Planning Authority are of the opinion that there remains

an underlying and overriding concern in respect of the potential adverse affects that a takeaway use would have on the amenities of the adjacent residential occupiers, and the wider area.

8.7 The issue of potential smell nuisance is not material to the consideration of

this application. An appropriate fume extraction condition is attached to the original consent for the ‘Quayside’ development and any food & drink operator occupying a unit would be required to comply with its requirements.

Traffic/Parking 8.8 The Operational Manager Transportation has assessed the application and

concludes that the proposal fails to comply with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Restaurant Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses’.

66

Paragraph 4.4 of the SPG provides the following advice: “Consideration is given to the likely effect of a proposal in terms of car

parking. Hot food takeaways, in particular, tend to generate significant levels of short-stay car parking, immediately outside the premises and in adjacent streets. This can cause obstructions on main roads and inconvenience to local residents, especially late at night when residential areas are fully parked.

Proposals which might encourage short-stay parking near to junctions, traffic

lights, pedestrian crossings bus stops and double yellow lines are unlikely to be acceptable.”

In light of this advice and having regard to the location of the application site,

it is considered that the proposal would result in an unacceptable risk of short-stay parking, causing significant concern in respect of the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and other road users.

Crime and Disorder 8.9 Planning Policy Wales and Welsh Office Circular 16/94 “Planning Out Crime”

recognise that, “Crime prevention is capable of being a material consideration when planning applications are considered”. The Circular advises that local planning authorities should consult Police Architectural Liaison Officers when determining planning applications.

8.10 In terms of this application the South Wales Police Crime Prevention Design

Advisor would object to the proposal in terms of unacceptable risk of increased crime and disorder, unless a condition is imposed that would restrict the takeaway sales hours to no later than 21:00hrs.

The agent (in their email dated 16th July 2012) has advised that the applicant

is willing to accept a condition requiring the takeaway sales to cease at 21:00hrs.

In this case, there would be no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in

terms of crime and disorder. Representations 8.11 In terms of the issues raised by the owners/occupiers of the flats above the

application premises:

• The Council’s Pollution Control Manager (Noise and Air) has advised that due to extant conditions, and the imposition of a takeaway hours of operation condition, should consent be granted, there would be no sustainable grounds to refuse consent in terms of noise nuisance. Notwithstanding this advice, the application is recommended for refusal as indicated above;

• The South Wales Police Crime Prevention Design Advisor has assessed

67

the application and has advised that providing the proposed takeaway sales use does not extend beyond 21:00hrs, there would be no objection on grounds of crime and disorder. The planning system has no powers to control ‘clientele’ using an establishment and no evidence is provided that future customers would commit acts of crime or disorder, or act in an intimidating manner. In this case, there are no sustainable grounds for refusal of consent in terms of crime, or the fear of crime;

• The issue of smell nuisance is not material to the consideration of this application. Consent for the use of unit 1 as a food & drink outlet already exists, and is conditional upon the submission, approval, implementation and maintenance of appropriate fume extraction systems;

• The consent for the use of Unit 1 as a food & drink premises exists as part of the development of ‘Quayside’ as a whole. The Council has no control over the nature of the food & drink to be sold at the premises;

• The issue of ‘need’ for another fish and chip premises is not material to the consideration of this application;

• The Council’s Waste Manager has advised that, should consent be granted, a litter bin should be provided by the applicant, that can be placed outside during opening hours and taken in when closed. However, the application is recommended for refusal for the reasons specified above;

• The Operational Manager Transportation has objected to the proposal on grounds of highway safety and the application is recommended for refusal on these grounds;

• The issue of delivery vehicle provision is not material to the consideration of this application;

• Any information given to prospective buyers is a private matter between them and the vendors. The fact that conditions attached to a planning permission exist does not prevent any further future application to amend or remove them. The Local Planning Authority are obliged to fully consider any and all new proposals, having regard for adopted planning policies and in light of any representations received;

• Notwithstanding any existing conditions or consents, each planning application is considered on its own merits and can be approved, or refused, accordingly. Notwithstanding this, the application under consideration is recommended for refusal;

• Additional information can be submitted by an applicant/agent at any time. The Council is not obliged to re-consult on additional information. In this case, the Council considered it appropriate to re-consult as the additional information related to hours of operation of the proposed takeaway facility and confirmation of the restaurant use. The time period offered (10 days) is considered reasonable.

Conclusion 8.12 This application deals purely with the proposal for ancillary takeaway sales

from a ground floor commercial unit (vacant) that benefits from an extant consent for Class A3 (Food & Drink) use, as a café or restaurant.

8.13 The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Restaurants,

68

Takeaways and Other Food and Drink Uses’ is clear in its advice that takeaway uses generate short term parking which can lead to obstruction of the highway stating “Proposals which might encourage short-stay parking near to junctions, traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, bus stops and double yellow lines are unlikely to be acceptable”. (para. 4.4)

Furthermore, the SPG highlights that nuisance can be caused by noise

generated by increased activity including customers arriving and leaving the premises (para. 4.5). Paragraph 4.7 states “if the level of noise or smell likely to arise form a proposal is such that is would be difficult to resolve……and especially if residents live immediately adjacent, planning permission is likely to be refused on grounds that the proposal would cause unacceptable nuisance to those residents”

8.14 The application site is set on a busy, traffic light controlled crossroad junction,

with pedestrian crossing points close to access doors on Bute Street and Bute Place.

There are a significant number of residential occupiers directly above the

application premises that are likely to be affected by the proposal to allow the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises.

In light of the advice contained in the adopted Supplementary Planning

Guidance, with due regard to the advice of the Council’s Transportation Service, and notwithstanding the advice received from the Council’s Pollution Control Service, it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons specified above.

69

70

71

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION, PETITION COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 11/2178/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 05/01/2012 ED: HEATH APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Mr A Khan LOCATION: 100 TY-WERN ROAD, RHIWBINA, CARDIFF, CF14 4SF PROPOSAL: CONVERSION OF FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE INTO TWO SELF CONTAINED FLATS WITH SINGLE AND FIRST FLOOR REAR EXTENSIONS AND LOFT CONVERSION WITH REAR DORMER ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to

the following conditions:

1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. No development shall take place until proposals showing how foul and

surface water flows from the site will be dealt with, have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure an orderly development of the site. 3. The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided

prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway.

4. No development shall take place until details of the means of site

enclosure have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The means of site enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being put into beneficial use.

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected. 5. The approved refuse storage facilities shall be provided prior to the

beneficial occupation of the development and thereafter shall be retained at all times.

Reason: To protect the amenities of the area. 6. C4R Landscaping Implementation

72

7. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro 8. C3S Cycle Parking 9. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans

numbered 101 Rev 1, 102 Rev 4, 103 Rev 5, 104 Rev 5 received on 16th June, 2012 attached to and forming part of this planning application.

Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. 10. E1B Samples of Materials RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other

premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.

RECOMMENDATION 3 : The applicant is requested to secure the consent of

the Operational Manager, Street Operations prior to undertaking any work in the public highway.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The contamination assessments and the affects of

unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for

(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils,

aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates/soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being

contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances.

• Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

(iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the

73

developer. Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the

physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.

The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of

the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That the applicant be advised that no work should

take place on or over the neighbour's land without the neighbour's express consent and this planning approval gives no such rights to undertake works on land outside the applicants ownership.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Planning permission is sought to extend the semi detached dwelling at 100 Ty

Wern Road, Heath and convert the premises into two self contained flats, each having two bedrooms. The application originally proposed three flats but the scheme has been amended to improve the relationship with the neighbouring occupiers and to provide additional amenity space.

1.2 The dwelling currently benefits from a flat roof, single storey rear extension

approximately 4.3 metres in length, sited adjacent to the boundary with the attached semi at 98 Ty Wern Road.

1.3 The application, as initially submitted, proposed a 8.4 metres long, single

storey rear extension, adjoining both the side garden of 98 Ty Wern Road and the northern (side boundary) of 2 Fairfax Road to the south.

1.4 However, following discussions with the Agent, the proposed extension has

been reduced in length in order to limit its visual impact on the neighbouring occupiers and to retain a larger private amenity area. The extension is shown to have both flat roof and hipped roof elements. The flat roof, sited adjacent to the boundary with 98 Ty Wern Road, rises to a height of 2.4 metres whereas the hipped roof rises to approximately 2.3 metres at eaves level and 3.2 metres to the ridge.

1.5 A first floor hipped roof extension is also proposed at the rear, projecting

approximately 2.0 metres beyond the main rear elevation of the property. This element has also been significantly reduced in scale following discussions with Applicant/Agent and was initially shown to be 3.7 metres in length. The structure will be sited approximately 2.0 metres off the boundary with the attached semi at no. 98 and will replace an existing smaller first floor extension.

1.6 The main roof of the property is shown to be extended from a hip to a gable

with a flat roof dormer extension, approximately 1.9 metres in width introduced on the rear roof slope.

74

1.7 Proposed materials are to comprise painted white render with brown roof

tiles. The ‘cheeks’ of the dormer are to be clad with vertical tiles. 1.8 Provision is shown within the layout for the storage of refuse containers

together with a private amenity space for both flats. Part of this area is currently enclosed by wooden fence panels.

1.9 To the side of the building, three off street parking spaces are to be provided

accessed from Fairfax Road. 1.10 The front of the plot is shown to be retained as an area of soft landscaping. 2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The application site comprises a hipped roof semi detached, 4 bedroom

dwelling located at the junction of Ty Wern Road and Fairfax Road, some 60.0 metres west of Caerphilly Road.

2.2 A similar pair of semi detached houses occupies a site on the opposite side of

Fairfax Road, to the east. 2.3 This part of Ty Wern Road is characterised by pairs of semi detached two

storey properties although there is some variety on the south side of the road, with a pair of semi detached bungalows nearby at nos. 94/95 Ty Wern Road.

2.4 Fairfax Road is a cul-de-sac comprising two short terraced, several pairs of

semi detached houses and a single detached house. 2.5 A small two storey detached dwelling has recently been constructed on land

to the side of 98 Ty Wern Road. No. 98 has itself been recently renovated with a hip to gable roof extension and an upgraded single storey extension at the rear, which is approximately 2.5 metres in length.

2.6 The curtilage of the application site is unenclosed along the Ty Wern Road

and Fairfax Road boundaries, save for a relatively small area at the rear of the plot which is enclosed by wooden fencing.

2.7 The rear site boundary with 2 Fairfax Road is partly enclosed with sold

fencing approximately 2.0 metres in height and partly by a brick wall which appears to be the remains of a garage structure that previously occupied the site.

2.8 The side elevation of 2 Fairfax Road contains a small obscurely glazed

window at first floor level and a further window at ground level, screened by the boundary wall.

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 03/291N : Demolition of 98 and 100 Ty Wern Road (St Fabians and Ael y

75

Bryn) and construction of three 2½ storey town houses; refused November, 2003.

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) and Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing

Facilities) and Policy 28 (Subdivision of residential property) of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan are considered to be relevant.

4.2 Policies 2.20 (Good Design), 2.24 (Residential Amenity) and 2.57 (Access,

Circulation and Parking Requirements) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003).

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance : Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking Supplementary Planning Guidance : Waste and Collection and Storage

Facilities Supplementary Planning Guidance : Design Guidance for Infill Sites 4.4 Relevant National Policy Guidance is contained in Planning Policy Wales

(2011) and TAN 12 : Design. 5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 The Operational Manager, Drainage, advises that consideration should be

given to utilising permeable paving to any new external surfacing such as the car parking area as well as other forms of SUDS, if practical, to reduce discharges of surface water to sewers.

In the light of the above and in order to ensure an orderly development, the

Officer requests that the following condition be added to any planning consent granted:

'' No development shall take place until proposals showing how foul and

surface water flows from the site will be dealt with have been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water. "

He also requests that details of this application should be forwarded to Dwr

Cymru Welsh Water Network Development Consultants for comment. 5.2 The Operational Manager, Transportation advises that the proposals are

acceptable on highway grounds subject to the provision and retention of street parking as proposed together with secure cycle parking provision at the ratio of one cycle per bedroom. Mindful of the concerns expressed by local residents, the Officer clarifies that the Council’s approved SPG states that for a one bedroom flat 0.5-1 car parking space will be required and that for a 2 bedroom flat, 0.5-2 spaces should be provided. He states that bearing in mind the guidelines work on maximum car parking standards, 3 no. off street car parking spaces will be acceptable to serve the proposed development and

76

that the application is considered to comply with the Council’s approved policy guidance.

5.3 The Operational Manager Waste Management advises that refuse storage

details are acceptable, stating that the areas must be retained for this purpose for future uses.

5.4 The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) requests

informatives R4 Contamination and Unstable Land Advisory Notice. The Officer has no comment to make in respect of noise/air pollution

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES 6.1 Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru request drainage conditions to ensure no

detrimental to residents, the environment and the Company’s assets. 7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Councillor F Bowden objects to the application for the following reasons: 1. This is a huge over-development of the site. The side and rear elevations

are very bulky and out of keeping with the local area and out of balance with the neighbouring property.

2. I believe that this proposal would intrude on the privacy of neighbours to

the rear of the property and have a detrimental effect on number 98 Ty Wern Road.

3. This development, while making car parking provision, is located on a

very difficult corner and close to the junction with Caerphilly Road where there are already problems with finding car parking provision for cars in Ty Wern Road and Fairfax Road. I think it reasonable to expect that there will be more than three cars at the property. I also note that there will be very little garden remaining at the rear of the property once the car parking spaces and the bins have been accommodated and I think this is unacceptable.

4. I consider the living/dining/kitchen spaces in each proposed flat to be

inadequate. 5. The noise element arising from three flats would be a major factor for the

residents at number 98 Ty Wern Road. 7.2 Councillor Cowan has requested the application be determined by Planning

Committee, rather than under delegated power. The Councillor cites the following reason:

‘out of keeping, unneighbourly development, insufficient off road parking, the

development would put pressure on an already exceptionally busy road, precedent for future developments’

77

The Councillor points out that although the application is in Heath Ward, the

north side of Ty Wern Road falls within Rhiwbina and that she is representing residents with concerns.

7.3 Local Members and Councillor Cowan have been consulted on the amended

plans and any further representations will be reported at Committee. 7.4 A sixty-six signature petition has been received, principally from residents in

Fairfax Road and Ty Wern Road. The grounds of objection are stated as follows:

‘If the development went ahead, it would be an overdevelopment of the

property/site to include problems of parking which are already strained, over occupancy of three flats, not one dwelling and early morning and late night noise’.

(Note: the petition was received before the application was amended from 3

no. to 2 no. flats). 7.5 The occupier of 2 Fairfax Road objects to the application for the following

reasons: (i) that rear wall of the proposed extension would include his side boundary

wall. The laying of the foundations for this wall and any guttering would affect the foundations of his property.

(ii) Housing in the area, built in the 1930’s, is prone to subsidence due to the

poor nature of the under soil. Consequently, the proposed works could affect the foundations of his property and those of his neighbours.

(iii) The design of the proposal is not in keeping with the character of the

neighbourhood. (iv) The proposed dormer and rear extensions would invade his privacy. (v) There are on going problems with the drains in this area, occasionally

overflowing. This proposal would only increase this problem. (vi) The proposed car parking spaces would be difficult to use because of the

cars or vans that regularly park opposite. There has been a large increase in the volume of traffic in this area due to service and delivery vehicles to a local business resulting in parking on Ty Wern Road and in Fairfax Road, especially at peak times. The proposal would increase this problem, making it more hazardous to exist Fairfax Road.

(vii) The occupier also states that the existing dwelling has three bedrooms

(not four as indicated) and that the property is currently vacant. 7.6 The occupier of 21 Fairfax Road objects stating that three flats would be an

78

overdevelopment, suggesting that two flats would be acceptable. The occupier also objects on parking grounds, stating that existing residents have difficulty accessing and parking within Fairfax Road being a narrow street allowing parking only on one side.

7.7 The occupier of 101 Ty Wern Road objects on the following grounds: (i) Parking. It is considered that the proposal does not provide adequate on

site parking for three flats, with consequent impact on surrounding houses and neighbours. The occupier has provided photographs to show examples of parking congestion in the vicinity of the application site.

(ii) Potential noise from the occupiers of the flats. 7.8 The occupiers of 98 Ty Wern Road object for the following reasons

(summary): (i) Drainage : Poor Functioning drainage in sewers, regular unblocking

needed. (ii) Parking: Restricted access to driveways. Strained parking in local area. (iii) Noise from three sets of occupants, reverberating noise though party wall. (iv) Concerns about subsidence. A soil report for 98 Ty Wern road shows clay

substrate is not achievable until around 4 meters in depth. The type of foundation is queried and whether it would cause subsidence to their property and 2 Fairfax Road

(v) The dormer/rear extension is considered to be overpowering and the dormer will overlook gardens. There will be no rear maintenance access to windows/guttering.

7.9 Neighbouring occupiers have been notified of the amended plans. The

occupiers of 101 Ty Wern Road, consider that three off street parking spaces would be inadequate for the proposed development and that the scheme would cause additional parking along Ty Wern Road, making the passing of vehicles dangerous and access for emergency/service vehicles difficult (photographs of the road have been provided with a view to demonstrating existing congestion).

The occupiers also consider that the conversion of the dwelling into flats

would set an unacceptable precedent and that unacceptable noise/anti social behaviour could result.

7.10 The occupier of 2 Fairfax Road continues to object to the application for

similar reasons to those outlined in paragraph 7.5. The occupier is also concerned with the inconvenience and disruption that will be caused by access to the site, the building work and the character of any tenants.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 The application proposes the conversion and extension of the semi detached

dwelling at 100 Ty Wern Road to provide two flats.

79

8.2 The site is within an existing housing area as defined in the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan. Policy 28 of the Local Plan states that the applications for the subdivision of residential properties into self contained flats will be favourably considered subject to appropriate provision for car parking, amenity space, refuse disposal and appropriate external alterations. In principle, therefore, there is no objection to the proposed use in this area.

8.4 The main planning issues are considered to relate to: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance

of the street scene and the general amenities of neighbouring occupiers; (ii) whether the proposed development will provide an acceptable living

environmental for future occupiers; (iii) parking/highway issues. 8.5 The proposed first floor extension (as amended) is modest in length at 2.0

metres and subservient in height to the main building. 8.6 Having regard to the siting and size of the proposed dormer roof extension

(1.9 metres in width), it is not considered that this element would be unduly prominent. In line with advice contained in the Householder Design Guide SPG, the dormer is set below the original roof ridge, a significant distance from the edge of the roof and set back from the external wall. The proposed hip to gable extension of the main roof will restore symmetry to the pair of semis having regard to the existing hip to gable extension at no. 98.

8.7 Visually, the proposal, as amended, will read as a conventional extension to a

single dwelling house and it is considered that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the street scene.

8.8 In relation to the effect of the development on the amenities of neighbouring

occupiers, the Council’s Householder Design Guide advises that two storey extensions should not be positioned very close to the boundary adjacent to the garden of a neighbour’s property. In this case, the proposed two storey rear extension, projecting some 2.0 metres beyond the rear elevation of the existing dwelling, will be sited approximately 2.0 metres from the boundary with the attached semi and approximately 7.0 metres from the side boundary of 2 Fairfax Road. It contains no windows in the side or rear elevation facing these properties.

8.9 Having regard to this relationship, it is not considered that this structure will

impact unduly on the amenities of the adjoining neighbours. 8.10 The window in the proposed dormer roof extension will face towards the

boundary with 2 Fairfax Road from a distance of approximately 9.0 metres. It is not considered that this relationship would impact unacceptably on the privacy of the occupiers of this property, which contains no clear glazed habitable room windows in its side elevation.

8.11 Proposed windows in the side (east) elevation of the extension will face

80

towards the rear garden of 102 Ty Wern Road, across the street, from a distance of approximately 14.0 metres. Such a relationship is also considered to be acceptable on privacy grounds.

8.12 As initially submitted, the proposed single storey extension was shown to

extend the full length of the rear garden, adjacent to the boundary with the attached semi at 98 Ty Wern Road. Although single storey in scale with hipped roof sloping away from the boundary, it was considered that an extension of this length would be unduly overbearing in its effect on the neighbouring occupiers and would also allow for little private amenity space for the future occupiers of the flat.

8.13 In the light of this concern, the plans have been amended by reducing the

length of the extension and setting its rear section away from the boundaries with both No. 98 and 2 Fairfax Road, thereby providing increased external amenity space and acceptable relationship with the adjoining occupiers.

8.14 As amended, the proposal for the two extended flats is considered to provide

adequate internal space and satisfactory external amenity areas for purposes of clothes drying, siting out, refuse storage etc., commensurate with the size of the flats.

8.16 The Operational Manager, Transportation has advises that the proposal

(which provides three off street parking spaces for two flats), is satisfactory in terms of parking provision/highway safety and accords with the Council’s approved guidelines.

8.17 Issues relating to the construction of the extension including the need for

sound proofing will be addressed as part of building regulations application. An appropriate drainage condition is recommended on the advice of the Operational Manager, Drainage Control and Welsh Water/Dwr Cymru.

8.18 The proposals, as amended, are considered acceptable on planning grounds

and approval is recommended subject to the attached conditions.

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION, PETITIONS COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 11/2190/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 03/01/2012 ED: CANTON APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Taff Housing Association LOCATION: FORMER MALTINGS PUBLIC HOUSE, COWBRIDGE ROAD EAST, CANTON, CARDIFF, CF5 1GZ PROPOSAL: CONSTRUCTION OF 26 NO. DWELLINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING PUBLIC HOUSE AND ASSOCIATED WORKS ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION: That, subject to persons having relevant interest in

the application site entering into a binding planning obligation in agreement with the Council under SECTION 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 encompassing the matters referred to in paragraphs 8.23, 8.25 and 8.26 the Chief Strategic Planning and Environment Officer's report planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. Details of the means of site enclosure shall be submitted to and approved

by the Local Planning Authority prior to their erection on site. The means of site enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being put into beneficial use.

Reason: To ensure that the amenities of the area are protected. 3. E1B Samples of Materials 4. C4P Landscaping Design & Implementation Pro 5. C4R Landscaping Implementation 6. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans

numbered 020G, 021D, 022C, 023E, 024D, 025C, 026C, 027F, 028D, 029B, 033C, 035B and Survey Dwg 2321 attached to and forming part of this application.

Reason: The plans amend and form part of the application. 7. This consent relates to the application as supplemented by the

information contained in letters and email communications from the agent dated 22 May, 2012, 23rd May, 2012, 1st June, 2012 and 21st June, 2012.

Reason: The information provided forms part of the application.

88

8. The car parking spaces shown on the approved plans shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained for that purpose.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway.

9. The cycle parking spaces hereby approved shall be provided before the

development is brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be retained at all times and shall not be used for any other purpose.

Reason: To ensure that adequate provision is made for the secure parking of cycles.

10. Details of the footway crossover at the existing access point on Radnor

Road, including resurfacing/replacement of paving of the existing footway along the perimeter of the site (as required) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to its alteration. The footway works shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details prior to the development being brought into beneficial use.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of all users passing along the highway abutting the site.

11. Prior to commencement of each phase of development, a scheme of

construction management shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access, wheel washing facilities and parking of contractors vehicles. The development construction of the relevant phase shall be managed in accordance with the scheme so approved unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity. 12. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking, or re-enacting that Order) no structure or extension shall be placed within the curtilage of any dwelling or alteration to any roof.

Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the area with adequate space about buildings and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

13. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order) no windows shall be inserted in the side (east) elevation of the dwelling adjoining the boundary with Radnor Court or in the rear roof planes of the dwellings hereby approved.

Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected and to ensure that the development does not prejudice the future development of adjoining land.

14. The corridor windows above ground floor level in the in the side (east)

elevation of that apartment block facing Radnor Court shall be non

89

opening below a height of 1.8 metres above internal floor level and glazed with obscure glass and thereafter shall be so retained.

Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected. 15. The northern site boundary wall adjoining 2 Radnor Road and 17

Anglesey Street shall be retained at its existing height (as shown on drawing ref. 020G).

Reason: To ensure that the privacy of the adjoining residential occupiers are protected.

16. The dwelling units hereby approved shall meet the BRE Code for

Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3, and shall obtain a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emissions Rate).

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.

17. Construction of any dwelling unit hereby permitted shall not begin until an

‘Interim Certificate’ has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emission Rate) shall be achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.

18. Prior to occupation of the individual dwelling units hereby permitted a

Code for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 ‘Final Certificate’ shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emissions Rate) has been achieved for the dwelling(s).

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards.

19. Prior to the commencement of development a site assessment, including

ground permeability testing as appropriate, has been undertaken to determine the practicality of utilising SUDS techniques such as soakaway drainage and permeable paving as a first option for the disposal of surface water run off, as well as other forms of sustainable drainage techniques and a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. No part of the development shall be occupied until the scheme is carried out and completed as approved.

Reason: To ensure an orderly form of development. 20. D7Z Contaminated materials 21. E7Z Imported Aggregates 22. During demolition work, dust control measures shall be implemented on

site, in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the

90

local planning authority prior to any demolition. Reason: To protect the amenities of residential occupiers adjacent to the

site. 23. No part of the demolition hereby permitted shall be commenced until

details of the temporary means of site enclosure have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The temporary means of site enclosure shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the commencement of demolition works and thereafter the enclosures shall be maintained for the duration of the construction works.

Reason: To ensure the safety of the occupiers of nearby residential properties is protected.

24. Within one month of the demolition of the building, the site shall be

cleared of building debris. Reason: To protect the visual amenities of the surrounding area. RECOMMENDATION 2: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other

premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The contamination assessments and the affects of

unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for

(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils,

aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being

contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances.

• Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

91

(iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.

Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the

physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.

The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of

the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.

RECOMMENDATION 4: The applicant is advised to liaise with the

Operational Manager, Highway Operations in order to obtain the necessary licence to implement the footway improvement works on Radnor Road.

RECOMMENDATION 5: That the applicant be advised as follows: It is

recommended that public transport options are provided to tenants upon residency as a welcome pack, as this can set in train sustainable transport behaviours. Leaflets are available from the Council for the bus and cycle routes in the area as well as guidance on the kind of information to provide in the pack which would promote sustainable transport behaviours. Liaison with the Council’s Travel Plan Officer, can be sought to help achieve this.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The developer is advised that any future resident of

the new flats will not be eligible to apply for a residents parking permit on any street, on the basis that off road parking is provided within the curtilage of the site (in accordance with the Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking Standards) and that the development is deemed to be acceptable on this basis, mindful of its accessible location and the level of car parking being provided.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Full planning permission is sought for the demolition of the vacant Maltings

Public House located at the corner of Cowbridge Road East and Radnor Road, Canton and the re-development of the site to provide 26 dwelling units comprising 22 no. flats (7 no. 1 bedroom flats and 15 no. 2 bedroom flats) and 4 no. houses (1 no. four bedroom dwelling and 3 no. three bedroom dwellings). The planning application, as initially submitted, included two additional flats, however, the scheme has been revised with a view to addressing certain concerns outlined in section 8 (analysis) of this report.

1.2 Details of the proposed site layout and design of the development are shown

on the attached plans. 1.3 The flats, which are located towards the front of the site, are up to four storeys

in scale with a maximum ridge height of approximately 12.6 metres. This compares to a maximum height of approximately 14.7 metres for the scheme as initially submitted for approval. Elements of the apartment block have also been reduced to three storeys in height.

92

1.4 The four dwellings, comprising two pairs of semi-detached houses, were

originally shown to face onto Radnor Road, set back from the footway to accommodate a face enclosure with off street parking. In the revised layout, the row of four dwellings has effectively been rotated through 900 so that the houses back onto the rear (northern) boundary of the site from a distance of approximately 9.0 metres and face towards the proposed apartment block, with the exception of unit adjacent to Radnor Road which has been designed with its principle (front elevation) facing towards the highway.

1.5 The dwellings are shown to be constructed to two storeys in height (9.0

metres to the ridge) with the proposed four bedroom unit also having accommodation in the roof space.

1.6 The proposed apartment block and dwellings are separated by a parking

courtyard and amenity space, incorporating clothes drying area, bin store and a cycle store. The parking courtyard is accessed from Radnor Road and provides 14 off street parking spaces. This represents an increase of 4 no. on site spaces when compared to the original layout. The reorientation of the dwellings permits the retention of 4 no. on street parking spaces on Radnor Road.

1.7 The Agents state that this part of Cowbridge Road East is of varied character

in terms of design, massing and scale, and that the proposed development has been carefully considered in the context of the surrounding area, with two storey houses proposed adjacent to the neighbouring terrace in Radnor Road and development of up to four storeys located towards the site frontage, reflecting the general pattern of taller structures along Cowbridge Road East.

1.8 The proposed palette of materials comprises a mix of red brickwork and off

white render with buff multi brickwork detailing. The contemporary feature of coloured cladding panels has been removed as the amended plans and replaced with a larger amount of red brickwork, considered to be more in keeping with the existing character of the area. External boundary enclosures along Cowbridge Road East and Radnor Road are shown to comprise 600mm high brick walls with 900mm railings above in between brick piers. The existing high boundary walls adjacent to the neighbouring office development at Radnor Court and the housing to the north, are to be retained.

1.9 A landscape scheme has been submitted which indicates tree/shrub planting

turfed area and a variety of hard surfaced treatments. 1.10 The Agents advise that Secured by Design accreditation is being sought for

the scheme. 1.11 A Pre-Assessment report has been submitted with the application to illustrate

how Level 3+ under the Code for Sustainable Homes, (including a mandatory 1 Credit requirement for Enc1 – Energy and Carbon Dioxide Emissions) could be achieved.

93

1.12 The Agent has also submitted a Consultation Report detailing a public exhibition event held on 17th May, 2012, at the applicant’s offices on Cowbridge Road East. The report notes that the issues which provoked most interest and debate were related to perceived car parking problems, scale, overpopulation and various general concerns about social housing and the occupants of such developments. The report provides brief analysis and interpretation of the responses received, concluding that the points raised have been reasonably addressed in the proposed development (as amended) or are not relevant to the consideration of the planning application.

1.13 In addition, the Agents have submitted a Transport Statement (TS) in support

of the application which seeks to detail the transport characteristics of the proposed development and its potential impact on the surrounding transport network. The TS also reviews parking demand within the surrounding streets.

1.14 In summary, parking beat surveys were undertaken in January, 2012, along

roads within 200 metres radius of the site. The results of the survey indicate that within the study area as a whole there was:

• 14% spare capacity (80 spaces) on a Saturday • 26% spare capacity (148 spaces) on a weekday am, and • 18% space capacity (102 spaces) on a weekday pm Notwithstanding this analysis, the report indicates that parking along some of the roads within the study area reached capacity.

1.15 The report advises that the site is well served by public transport, with a number of regular scheduled bus services along Cowbridge Road East and is within close proximity to local amenities.

1.16 The TS refers to parking surveys of six existing Taff HA development at

locations in Canton and Grangetown, undertaken in March, 2012. The surveys indicate that the average maximum car ownership level equates to 49% (i.e. approximately half of the properties do not own a car or have access to a car).

1.17 The TS also provides an estimate of vehicle trip generation rates from the

TRICS trip generation database. Based on a maximum of 26 dwelling units, it states that the development could generate up to 12 vehicles (two way) in the am peak and up to 14 vehicles (two way) in the pm peak. It considers that the volumes of traffic generated would be likely to have a negligible impact on the surrounding highway network. The Report concludes that the proposed parking provision (14 spaces) is in accordance with relevant local planning authority standards and sufficient to accommodate the likely parking demand generated by the proposal.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE

2.1 The application site, which measures approximately 0.16 hectares, is located

on Cowbridge Road East, next to its junction with Radnor Road. Immediately

94

to the east, the site adjoins Radnor Court which it a two storey complex of office buildings. To the north, the site adjoins the side boundary of 2 Radnor Road and the rear boundary of 17 Anglesey Street. To the south of the site, on the opposite side of Cowbridge Road East, lies the Job Centre Plus building. To the west of Radnor Road, the site faces the side of 258 Cowbridge Road East together with a number of other residential properties.

2.2 The application site is broadly rectangular in plan and is currently occupied

by the vacant Maltings public house. The red brick building is two storeys in scale with a single storey projection at the rear. It sits towards the front of the site with approximately two thirds of the land taken up by car parking, accessed from Radnor Road. The front of the building is set back from the pavement with this area having formerly accommodated a beer garden.

2.3 The site is enclosed to the north and east by a mix of high red brick and stone

walls. The southern boundary and the southernmost part of the western boundary are enclosed by dwarf walls with railings with the remaining part of the western boundary also enclosed by red brick walls with a gap providing vehicular access to the site.

2.4 There is a pedestrian crossing facility at the front of the site on Cowbridge

Road East. The western side of the site, adjacent to Radnor Road provides non-permit on-street parking with the exception of the parking restriction indicated by double yellow lines, approximately 20.0 metres in length, near the junction with Cowbridge Road East.

2.5 The vacant nature of the building has resulted in the windows being boarded

up and it is also evident that the site has become the subject of fly tipping. 2.6 The site is located at the western end of the Cowbridge Road East district

centre which has a mix of shops, offices, housing and other uses. Away from this road, the area is predominantly residential in use.

2.7 In the vicinity of the site, the built environment displays considerable variety,

particularly along Cowbridge Road East with mix of traditional and more modern developments. Building heights in the area generally vary from two to three storeys. The recently completed Taff HA development at the former Victoria Park Clinic to the east of Radnor Court, includes a four storey apartment block fronting Cowbridge Road East. 258 Cowbridge Road East, on the opposite side of Radnor Road is three storeys in scale, estimated by the Agents to be approximately 10.8 metres in height.

3. SITE HISTORY

3.1 10/1926/DCO : Demolition of existing public house and construction of 22 flats

and associated works. The application was approved at Planning Committee on 13th April, 2011, subject to the conclusion of a planning obligation under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The legal agreement has not been completed and therefore the planning permission has yet to be issued.

95

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK

4.1 Relevant policies of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) include: Policy 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality) Policy 12 (Energy Efficient Design) Policy 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities) Policy 18 (Provision for Cyclists) Policy 19 (Provision for Pedestrians) Policy 31 (Residential Open Space Requirement) Policy 49 (District and Local Centres) 4.2 Relevant policies of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October

2003) include: 1B (Achieving Good Design) 2.20 (Good Design) 2.21 (Change of Use or Redevelopment to Residential use) 2.24 (Residential Amenity) 2.26 (Provision for Open Space, Recreation and Leisure) 2.36 (District and Local Centres) 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements) 4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking (Jan,

2010) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March

2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance :Design Guidance for Infill Sites (2011) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Waste Collection and Storage Facilities

(March 2007) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Schools and Development (March 2007) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Development and Community

Contributions (Jan 2010) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Open Space (2008) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Affordable Housing (March 2007) Interim Planning Policy : Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (October,

2012). 4.6 Relevant National Planning Policy Advice is contained in Planning Policy

Wales Edition 4, February 2011, TAN 12: Design (2001), TAN 22 : Planning for Sustainable Buildings.

. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 The representations of the Operational Manager, Transportation have been

included in the Analysis Section of this report (refer to paragraph 8.23). 5.2 The Operational Manager, Waste Management advises that the bin storage

area shown for the proposed flats is acceptable. The Officer provides

96

guidance on the required refuse storage provision for the apartments. A copy of the Officer’s representations has been forwarded to the Agents for their information.

5.3 The Operational Manager, Drainage Management has raised no objections to

the application on drainage grounds. However, in order to ensure an orderly development he requests that the following condition be added to any planning consent granted:

'No development shall take place until a site assessment, including ground

permeability testing as appropriate, has been undertaken to determine the practicality of utilizing SUDS techniques such as soakaway drainage and permeable paving as a first option for the disposal of surface water run off as well as other forms of sustainable drainage techniques and a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved by the Planning Authority in consultation with Dwr Cymru Welsh Water . '

He also requests that details of the application be forwarded to Dwr Cymru

Welsh Water Network Development Consultants for comments. 5.4 The Operational Manager, Parks and Sports advises that as no public open

space is being provided on site, the developers will be required to make a financial contribution towards the provision of open space off-site, or the improvement of existing open space in the locality. Based the details submitted with the application. The Officer has calculated the contribution to be £42,182 and will need to be secured via a Section 106 Agreement.

5.5 The Housing Strategy (Enabling) Officer comments as follows: The site will be developed by Taff Housing Association solely for affordable

housing. Housing Strategy fully supports the development of this site for affordable housing and has been working closely with Taff Housing Association to ensure the delivery of the units.

The development will comprise of 26 units of new affordable accommodation

for single people, couples and small families, all of which are in high demand in this area of Cardiff.

The Local Housing Market Assessment (LHMA), which was completed in

2007 and will be updated shortly, examined the levels of current and newly arising need and the estimated future supply to meet this need. The findings indicated an annual requirement of 2,173 additional affordable units per year for the next five years. In addition, waiting lists for affordable accommodation are increasing and there are extremely high levels of housing need. In this area of the City, data available from the Council’s housing waiting list (November 2011) indicates there are 6,896 households waiting for a property in Canton with only 3 properties becoming available within the last 12 months. Canton has been an area where there has been limited opportunity in recent

97

years to deliver new affordable housing. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing

(March 2007) Paragraph 4.2 states that “………for larger developments in particular, the affordable housing should be located throughout the site in clusters’. In addition, the Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (October 2010) states that the Council ‘seeks to support the development of mixed and inclusive communities…[and]will expect that the affordable housing should be located throughout the site and not concentrated in one part of the development”. These policies are in place to ensure that on much larger sites in Cardiff, a return to the ‘segregation’’ of affordable housing of previous generations is not promoted.

. Taff Housing Association are undertaking a number of developments in the

local area. Arguably, the mixed development of 23 units (flats and houses) at the former Victoria Clinic site and the development subject of the current planning application do not together constitute a large development. Both sites are in ideal locations for affordable housing and much of the surrounding streets is in private ownership and used for private rented accommodation. An increase in much needed affordable housing provision may indeed have a balancing effect on the local community, rather than an unbalancing one.

5.7 The Operational Manager, Environment (Pollution Control) has requested

conditions D7Z (Imported Materials), E7Z (Imported Aggregates) together with informatives R4 Contamination and Unstable Land Advisory Notice.

5.9 The advice of the Operational Manager, Regeneration (Neighbourhood

Planning) has been incorporated into the Analysis Section of the report. 5.8 The Chief Officer Education advises that given the number of units and type

of accommodation proposed, there are no comments to make on the application.

6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES 6.1 Dwr Cymru/Welsh Water has recommended drainage conditions to ensure no

detriment to the environment, residents or the Company’s assets. 6.2 South Wales Police Architectural Liaison Officer advises that the application

as amended, and supported by points of clarification from the Architects, addresses his initial queries regarding the scheme. The Officer confirms that a ‘Secured by Design’ application has been received and can see no reason why such a standard will not be achieved. In conclusion, the Officer states that South Wales Police have no objection to the development and welcome the fact that it will be built to Secured by Design standard which will significantly reduce the risks of crime for residents.

6.3 Cardiff Bus has been notified of the application. No representations have

been received.

98

7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Councillors C Furlong, R Patel and R Cook objected to this planning

application (as initially submitted for consideration) for the following reasons:

(1) The mass and height of the four storey block on the corner of Radnor Road and Cowbridge Road East dominates the corner and is overbearing. From the elevations supplied it seems to be higher than the houses on the opposite corner of Radnor Road and results in an un-neighbourly and overbearing form of development which contravenes Policy 2.24 (Residential Amenity) of the Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (October 2003). Residents are particularly concerned about privacy and lack of sunlight.

(2) The Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Affordable Housing

(March 2007) when talking about large sites states that “…. in order to ensure social integration and the development of mixed, balanced and sustainable communities. For larger developments in particular, the affordable housing should be located throughout the site in clusters and not concentrated in one part of the development.” Whilst this guidance is mainly applicable to larger estates we consider that taken together with the recent development of the Victoria Park clinic site of 23 affordable dwellings less than 50 metres away from this site there is a risk of a concentration of social housing having an un- balancing effect on the local community.

(3) While the proposal does provide one parking space for each of the four

houses, there are only six parking spaces provided for the twenty four flats. Parking is already a huge problem in the surrounding streets and this low level of provision will only add to the problem. Parking is particularly problematic due to the close proximity to two schools and the Cardiff City stadium, therefore we believe traffic flows and parking densities should be examined. In the design and access statement the developer states that “Recent studies have shown that Taff Housing Association’s tenants demonstrate an average car ownership rate of 30% on a per-dwelling basis, …” Therefore on that basis alone the flats in this development should have seven parking spaces, not six.

(4) We believe the quality of design in this application is poor and does not

reflect the character of the existing Victorian properties. Neither does the design enhance or reinforce the distinctiveness of the area; it is merely a copy of the recently approved Victoria Park clinic development .

7.2 With respect to the amended plans, the Councillors advise that they wish to

object on behalf of residents who have contacted them, for the following reasons:

(1) Although the height has been reduced the building still dominates the

corner and is overbearing.

99

(2). The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance : Affordable Housing (March 2007) when taking about large sites states that ‘…in order to ensure social integration and the development of mixed balanced and sustainable communities. For larger development in particular, the affordable housing should be located through the site in clusters and not concentrated in one part of the development.’ Whilst this guidance is mainly applicable to larger estates some residents still consider that taken together with the recent development of the Victoria Park clinic site of 23 affordable dwellings less than 50 metres away from this site there is a risk of concentration of social housing having an un-balanced effect on the local community.

(3) Although the development has been reduced by two units, and the

parking spaces increased, residents are still concerned that the development will increase parking pressures in the area.

7.3 An initial petition was received, signed by 109 residents, objecting to the

planning application. 7.4 Neighbouring and nearby occupiers have been notified of the planning

application. The application has also been advertised in the press and by the display of site notices. 52 letters of objection were received in respect of the application as originally submitted for consideration. In summary, the grounds of objection were as follows:

(i) Overdevelopment of the site. The height , scale and design of the

apartment building is considered to be inappropriate and not in keeping with the area. The recent development of apartments at the former Victoria Clinic site is cited as unsightly and there is concern that further buildings of this height will give the impression of high rise blocks crammed into a small space. It is considered that the density of development will alter the nature of the locality and is inappropriate for the area.

(ii) Parking spaces allocated are totally inadequate for such a development. The scheme will impact on local residents in the neighbourhood as residents of the development will have no option to park in adjacent streets. There is no visitor parking provision on site. It is considered that existing parking permits have not solved the parking problems and the area is rarely patrolled by wardens. Parking in the area is already difficult. The development of the Maltings site will increase the problem. There is a significant amount of illegal parking in the area. The vehicular access to the proposal is likely to cause problems on Cowbridge Road East which is already a busy road. Concern has been raised for the safety of children attending Radnor Road and Treganna School as a result of increases traffic.

(iii) There is concern that there has been little consultation with local residents.

(iv) Disturbance from demolition/building works if the development was to be implemented.

(v) Potential drainage issues. It is queried whether the drainage

100

infrastructure can cope with the development. (vi) The number of social housing units proposed, is considered by many

residents to be detrimental and not consistent with creating mixed and inclusive community contrary to Council policy. It is pointed out that a social housing scheme is already being built at the Victoria clinic site and that in conjunction with the proposed scheme, it would result in over 50 such units concentrated into a small area. Concern is expressed about the potential for antisocial behaviour.

(vii) Possible loss of view and privacy. (viii) Possible loss of light and overbearing in its effect on

neighbouring/nearby properties. (ix) Effect on local services. (x) Effect on house prices (xi) The development appears cramped with limited recreational area for

residents of the apartments. (xii) The proposed accommodation differs from the family houses

predominant in the area and will attract different occupiers, changing the demographic characteristics of the area.

(xiii) There is concern that the adjacent office site is for sale and could be similarly developed.

7.5 A resident gave qualified support to the plans stating that the general site

layout should be applauded with the extension to the Radnor Road terrace and block of flats to the front of the site. The resident nevertheless considered that three storey development would be a more appropriate scale and that there should be a greater use of brick and stone and a subsequent reduction in render. The resident also states that the car ownership figures of existing Taff HA tenants and survey of existing parking in the locality should be considered to ensure that future provision is adequate.

7.6 Representations were received on behalf of the owners of the offices at 1 and

2 Radnor Court which adjoin the side of the proposed development, objecting to the application and requesting that it be refused. In summary, the following objections were raised:

(i) overshadowing, loss of daylight (and sunlight) to the adjacent offices; (ii) overbearing, oppressive and unneighbourly development; and (iii conflict with established national and adopted and unadopted land

planning polices. (Note: The offices, which are currently vacant, have been sold since this

representation was received. It is understood that the new owner/occupier remains concerned about the impact of the development and, in particular, the loss of light to the first floor office space).

7.7 Following consultation on the amended plans, some 60 further letters/emails

of objection have been received which effectively reiterate the concerns outlined in paragraph 7.4. A number of residents take issue with the consultation exercise carried out by the Applicants and their subsequent report and query the findings parking surveys submitted in support of the

101

application. An objection has also been received on behalf of the landlords of the adjacent offices on grounds of overdevelopment, lack of parking, scale and the practicality of constructing the apartment block in such close proximity to the boundary and its associated future maintenance.

7.8 Two letters of support have been received following re-consultation. 7.9 A further petition has been received, signed by 72 residents, requesting that a

local resident speaks at Planning Committee to raise objections on their behalf.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 The application seeks planning permission for the development of 22 no.

flats and 4 houses on the site of the vacant Maltings public house, Cowbridge Road East. The principle of residential development has been established by the granting of planning permission in April, 2011, for the erection of 22 flats under planning application 10/1926DCO (subject to the completion of a planning obligation).

8.2 Notwithstanding the location of the part of the site within the Cowbridge Road

East District Centre, the current proposal is considered to raise no land use policy concerns having regard to this recent planning history, the occupation of the site by a vacant A3 use rather than A1 retailing and its location directly adjacent to existing housing.

8.3 The main planning issues are considered to relate to the following matters: (i) the effects of the proposed development on the character and

appearance of the street scene and the general amenities of neighbouring and nearby occupiers;

(ii) the acceptability of the proposed development in respect of highway safety and off street parking provision;

(iii) whether the proposed development will provide an acceptable living environment for the existing and prospective occupiers;

(iv) appropriate Section 106 contributions. 8.4 Design/scale/layout The application site occupies a prominent corner location at the junction of

Cowbridge Road East and Radnor Road. The built environment in the vicinity of the site displays considerable variety, particularly along Cowbridge Road East where there is a mix of traditional and more modern developments. Building heights generally vary from two to three storeys. However, the Taff Housing Association development at the nearby Victoria Park clinic site, to the east of Radnor Court, includes a four storey apartment block fronting Cowbridge Road East.

8.5 Following discussions with the applicants concerning aspects of the proposed

development, including the proposed scale, finished appearance and overall

102

height of the apartment block, the scheme has been amended with a view to improving its relationship with adjacent and nearby development.

8.6 To this end, the overall height of the building has been reduced from

approximately 14.7 metres to approximately 12.6 metres with the third floor accommodation partly contained within the roof space. This compares to a maximum ridge height approximately 11.4 metres for the scheme of 22 flats previously approved under planning application 10/1926/DCO (subject to the conclusion of a S106 Agreement). To ensure an acceptable transition in scale between the proposed apartment block and the adjacent two storey Radnor Court office, the forward most part of the proposed building fronting Cowbridge Road East has been reduced to three storeys, rising to a height of approximately 7.7 metres at eaves level and approximately 10.7 metres to the ridge of a hipped roof.

8.7 A similar step down in the level of the block from four to three storeys has

been introduced along the Radnor Road frontage which provides for a smoother transition between the apartment development, the proposed two storey houses at the rear of the site and the traditional two storey housing along the road.

8.8 The introduction of more gables at roof level and revisions to the palette of

materials is now considered to respond more closely to the characteristic design and finished appearance of other buildings in the area. For example, the contemporary coloured panelling of the scheme, as initially proposed, has been removed and a larger amount of red brickwork introduced. The horizontal banding picks up a similar detail on the traditional three storey corner property on the opposite side of Radnor Road.

8.9 The four dwellings at the rear of the site have been rotated through 90o so

that the houses back onto the northern boundary and face towards the proposed apartment block, with the exception of the unit adjacent to Radnor Road which has been designed with its front elevation facing towards the highway. It is considered that this revision addresses the Radnor Road street frontage in an acceptable manner reflecting the building line of the existing terrace to the north, rather than being set back to accommodate frontage parking, as originally proposed.

8.10 The proposed layout accommodates on street car parking in accordance with

the Council’s guidelines whilst also providing an area of amenity space with provision for cycle bin storage and clothes drying. On balance, it is considered that the proposed development would provide acceptable standard of living accommodation for future occupiers who would benefit from a highly sustainable location, adjacent to a district centre and a primary bus route.

8.11 The South Wales Police Architectural Liaison Officer confirms that a ‘Secured

by Design’ application has been received and has raised no objections to the proposed development (refer to paragraph 6.2).

103

Neighbour amenity 8.12 Concerns have been raised that the scheme would result in an overbearing

and unneighbourly form of development with unacceptable consequences in terms of overlooking and overshadowing and loss of light.

8.13 With regard to the effect on residential amenity, the application site adjoins

the side boundary of 2 Radnor Court and the rear garden boundary of 17 Anglesey Street to the north. The nearest part of the proposed development to this boundary comprises the 4 no. houses sited approximately 9.0 metres away. A distance of approximately 28.0 metres separates the rear elevation of the 17 Anglesey Street from the nearest proposed dwelling. At 5.0 metres in height at eaves level, rising to a ridge height of approximately 9.0 metres, it is not considered that the proposed dwellings would be unduly unneighbourly in terms of their visual impact. The northern boundary site is enclosed by a significant wall of between 3.0 metres and 3.6 metres in height, which is to be retained. Given the height of the boundary wall, it is not considered that this element of the scheme would unreasonably harm the privacy of the neighbouring/nearby residential occupiers to the north.

8.14 Whilst the proposed apartment block would be visible from the some existing

residential properties to the north and northeast of the site, this would be at some considerable distance, with the proposed houses and the adjacent offices also providing a degree of screening. For example, the rear of the block would be some 40.0 metres from the rear garden boundary with 17 Anglesey Street. These distances increase for the properties located to the north east of the site.

8.15 Whilst the loss of a private view is not considered to be a material of planning

consideration, having regard to the distances outlined above, the proposed apartment block would not be overbearing in terms of its effect on the residential occupiers to the north and north east of the site or result in an unacceptable loss of privacy.

8.16 The front elevation of the apartment block faces directly towards the Job

Centre Plus building and part of a mixed commercial/residential building known as ‘Hamilton Court’ on the opposite side of Cowbridge Road East. Having regard to the distance of approximately 23.0 metres which would separate the proposed apartment building from the properties opposite, it is not considered that the effect of the development would be unduly overbearing or that it would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy to those occupiers. It is also evident, that part of the apartment block directly facing Hamilton Court has been reduced in height to three storeys.

8.17 There are two small dwellings located on the western side of Radnor Road

facing towards the northern half of the application site from distance of approximately 13.0 metres. It is not considered that the scale and layout of the proposed development , as amended, would impact unacceptably of the amenities of the occupiers of those dwellings. Neither is it considered that the

104

relationship between the proposed apartment block and the three storey residential building on opposite corner of Radnor Road (no. 258) would be unacceptable on grounds of residential amenity having regard to the distance separating them (between 14.0 metres and 15.0 metres) and the reduction in the height of the north western element of the block from four to three storeys.

8.18 It is evident that the proposed apartment block would be sited within

approximately 1.0 metres of the boundary with the adjacent office building at 1 and 2 Radnor Court. The office has a number of windows in its western elevation, including eight windows located opposite the proposed apartment block (four at ground floor and four at first floor). However, the ground floor windows face towards the existing 2.2 metre high boundary wall and all of the windows are positioned at a relatively high level above the internal floor and are small in size. The principle windows serving this part of the office space are situated on the eastern elevation of the building and will not be affected by the development. Whilst the proximity and height of the proposed apartment block will inevitably result in some loss of light to part of the office space, particularly at first floor level, it is not considered that the effect of the development would be of such harm as to justify the refusal of the application on this ground.

8.19 Highway safety/off street parking provision The proposed development provides vehicular access into the site, mid-way

along the Radnor Road frontage leading to a courtyard parking area containing 14 parking spaces. This represents an increase of 4 no. on site spaces in comparing to the original layout. Furthermore, the reorientation of the proposed dwellings away from the Radnor Road frontage permits the retention of 4 no. off street parking spaces on Radnor Road.

8.21 The previously approved scheme at the site (ref. 10/1926/DCO) provided 19

off street parking spaces for a development comprises of 22 flats (19 x 2 bedroom and 3 x one bedroom flats). The lower parking ratio of the current planning application reflects the fact that the scheme has been submitted by Taff Housing Association for the purpose of providing affordable housing. The Council’s approved (adopted) Supplementary Planning Guidance : Access, Circulation and Parking permits a reduced level of on site parking provision for such development in comparison to open-market housing based on the lower car ownership rates of affordable/social housing developments.

8.22 It is evident that car parking issues have been highlighted as one of the key

concerns raised by residents and local members. Whilst there is no obligation on the part of the applicant to improve existing on-street parking issues in the vicinity of the site, it is necessary for the development to comply with relevant national and local planning policies in respect of parking and highway safety.

8.23 The Operational Manager, Transportation has assessed the scheme (as

amended) in terms of parking provision and highway safety, advising as follows:

105

(i) The submitted Transport Statement (TS) identifies that the proposed residential use would be likely to generate 12No two-way trips in the AM peak hour period and 14No two-way trips in the PM peak hour period, which broadly equates to one vehicle movement every 4 to 5 minutes at the networks busiest times.

(ii) 14No car parking spaces are being provided within the curtilage of the

site, which for an affordable housing development falls within the guidelines set out in Access, Circulation and Parking Standards SPG, i.e. a minimum of 7.5No spaces would be required. As such, the level of car parking provision is considered acceptable, in principle.

(iii) In addition, parking surveys have been undertaken on a weekday (08.00-

10.00 and 19.30-21.30) and a Saturday (11.00-13.00) in the surrounding streets within a 200m radius of the development site, the results of which indicate that generally, there would be opportunity for vehicles to park on street (despite some of the roads being at capacity), should any overspill parking take place. Evidence is also provided within the Transport Statement which demonstrates that the average level of car ownership within Taff Housing Association’s existing schemes, (i.e. week day average of 41% and Saturday average of 49%) broadly equates to half of the properties not owning or having access to a car. As such, it is considered that any overspill parking that may take place would likely be limited.

(iv) The Transport Statement concludes that the volumes of traffic generated

by the proposal will have a negligible impact on the surrounding highway network and a minimal impact on the level of on street parking within the surrounding streets.

(v) It is proposed to retain the existing vehicular access on Radnor Road,

however due to the number of car parking spaces accessed off this point, and in order that priority is given to pedestrians, a footway crossover arrangement will be required. As such a condition is recommended to ensure that the works are undertaken to an acceptable specification and that the necessary road opening permit is obtained.

(vi) Due to the accessible location of the site it would be expected that travel

modes other than the private car should be encouraged and as such a financial contribution is recommended for the provision of a Real Time Information facility at the nearest bus stop on Cowbridge Road East.

(vi) It is considered that the submitted Transport Statement adequately

represents the proposal and that no highway/transportation objections be raised, subject to recommended conditions 8 to 11 (inclusive), informatives 4, 5 and 6 and securing a financial contribution of £8,320 for the provision of a Real Information facility at a bus stop on Cowbridge Road East.

8.24 On the basis of this advice, it is considered that an objection to the proposed

106

development (as amended) on highway/parking grounds could not be supported. It is also evident that the site is in a highly sustainable location being well located to shops, services and public transport.

8.25 Community Facilities The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance : ‘Community Facilities and

Residential Development’ permits the local planning authority to seek a financial contribution on residential developments containing 25 or more new dwellings where it has been identified that investment in community facilities will be required to meet the needs of the new population. The Operational Manager, Regeneration, has advised that a financial contribution in respect of this development would comply with Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) regulations, being necessary to make the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and land to the proposal. Utilising the methodology outlined in SPG, a financial contribution of £17,999 has been requested (and accessed by the applicant) and would need to be secured though the completion of a S106 Agreement.

8.26 Open Space As no public open space is being provided in site, a financial contribution

towards the provision of open space off site, or the improvement of existing open space in the locality has been sought in accordance with SPG : Open Space (2008). In accordance with the methodology outlined in the SPG, the Operational Manager, Parks has calculated the contribution to be £42,182 and will also need to be secured via a S106 Agreement.

8.27 Affordable/Social Housing The application site is proposed to be developed solely for affordable housing.

As advised by Council’s Housing Strategy (Enabling) Officer, there is a demonstrable demand for new affordable accommodation in the area and housing officers have been working closely with the applicant to progress the delivery of the units.

8.28 It is evident that many residents have raised concerns about the number of

social housing units proposed. The view has been expressed that the scheme, in conjunction with the Taff Housing Association development of some 23 affordable units at the nearby Victoria Clinic site, would result in a large concentration of social housing within a small area resulting in an unbalancing effect on the local community creating pressures on local services and raising issues of anti-social behaviour etc.

8.29 The Council’s SPG on Affordable Housing advises at paragraph 4.2 that: in

order to ensure social integration and the development of mixed balanced and sustainable communities for larger developments in particular, affordable housing should be located throughout the site in clusters. The approved Affordable Housing Delivery Statement (October 2010) also states that the Council seeks to ‘support the development of mixed and inclusive

107

communities ..(and) will expect that affordable housing should be located throughout the site are not concentrated in one part of the development.’

8.30 Although many residents have expressed the view that the current scheme

does not accord in this advice, it is not considered that this policy guidance intended to be directly applicable to the re-development of (relatively) small brownfield sites of this nature. As indicated by the Housing Strategy Officer in paragraph 5.5, the guidance is in place to ensure that on much larger sites in Cardiff, a return to the ‘segregation’ of affordable housing of previous generations is not promoted. Conversely, the Officer argues that an increase in much needed affordable housing may indeed have a balancing effect on local community rather than an unbalancing one.

8.31 The Applicant’s Agents have advised that future residents of Taff properties

are a mix of people of various needs and backgrounds and that where possible, efforts are made to house local people in their new developments, with due deference to the Council’s housing list. With respect to the view that there is an increase in anti-social behaviour and crime associated with social housing, the Agents state that this is based on conjecture and stereotype.

8.32 Planning policies encourage the location of new residential development in

sustainable locations with good access to existing services and non car dependant modes of transport. The application site, being located on the edge of a district centre and adjoining a primary bus routes are considered ideally placed in this regard.

8.33 It is considered that the proposed site is a suitable location for an affordable

housing development and that a refusal of the application on grounds relating to the concentration of such housing would not be justified.

Conclusion 8.34 It is recommended that the application, as amended, is acceptable on

planning grounds and approval is recommended subject to the attached conditions and to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement with the Council to secure affordable housing and the financial contributions detailed in paragraphs 8.23. 8.25 and 8.26 of this report.

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/137/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 15/02/2012 ED: RADYR APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Mr Traylor LOCATION: LAND AT 17, AEL-Y-BRYN, RADYR, CARDIFF, CF15 8AZ PROPOSAL: PROPOSED SPLIT LEVEL 3 BEDROOM DETACHED DWELLING ON A VACANT PLOT. ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to

the following conditions:

1. C01 Statutory Time Limit 2. The consent relates to the application as amended by the revised plans

received on 13th April 2012 numbered SCHD(A)100A, SCHD(A)101C, SCHD(A)102B, SCHD(A)103B, SCHD(A)104B, SCHD(A)105B, SCHD(A)106B and SCHD(A)107, and as supplemented by the additional information (Tree Survey and Constraints Plan, Arboricultural Implications Assessment, Method Statements and Tree Protection Plan) received on 21st March 2012, attached to and forming part of this planning application.

Reason: The plans and additional information amend and form part of the application.

3. Prior to the development hereby permitted being brought into beneficial

use provision shall be made within the site for the parking of vehicles in accordance with details to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, such approval to be obtained prior to the commencement of development. The parking area shown in the approved details shall be provided prior to the development being brought into beneficial use and thereafter shall be maintained and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway, in accordance with policy 17 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

4. Prior to the commencement of development, details of the proposed

access onto Cae'r Graig, including construction details of the driveway, shall be submitted and approved in writing with the Local Planning Authority and thereafter implemented and retained. These details shall ensure that the gradient of the driveway does not exceed 1 in 12.

115

Reason: In the interest of highway and pedestrian safety, in accordance with policy 19 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

5. Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of construction

management shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to include details of construction traffic routes, site hoardings, site access and wheel washing facilities. The construction shall be managed strictly in accordance with the approved scheme.

Reason: In the interests of highway safety and public amenity, in accordance with policy 2.57 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

6. Any topsoil [natural or manufactured],or subsoil, to be imported shall be

assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported soil is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed with in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

7. Any aggregate (other than virgin quarry stone) or recycled aggregate

material to be imported shall be assessed for chemical or other potential contaminants in accordance with a scheme of investigation to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority in advance of its importation. Only material approved by the Local Planning Authority shall be imported. All measures specified in the approved scheme shall be undertaken in accordance with the relevant Code of Practice and Guidance Notes. Subject to approval of the above, verification sampling of the material received at the development site is required to verify that the imported aggregate is free from contamination and shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To ensure that the safety of future occupiers is not prejudiced, in accordance with policy 10 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.63 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan

8. No development shall take place until a site assessment, including ground

permeability testing as appropriate, has been undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques such as soakaway drainage and permeable paving can be utilised for the disposal of surface water run-off and a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local

116

planning authority, which shall include sustainable drainage techniques if, as a result of the ground permeability tests, these have been found to be feasible. No part of the development shall be occupied until the drainage scheme is carried out and completed as approved.

Reason: In the interests of the proper drainage of the site, in accordance with policy 2.61 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order), no structure or extension shall be placed within the curtilage of the dwelling hereby approved or any alteration made to the roof, nor shall any windows or other openings be made in the external walls of the dwelling other than those shown on the approved plans.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and privacy, in accordance with policies 2.20 and 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

10. Prior to the commencement of development, a scheme for boundary walls

and/or fencing shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved scheme shall be implemented prior to the first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved and thereafter maintained.

Reason: In the interests of visual and residential amenity, in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.20 and 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

11. The building hereby approved shall meet the BRE Code for Sustainable

Homes (Version 3) Level 3, and shall obtain a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emissions Rate).

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (2011).

12. Construction for any dwelling hereby permitted shall not begin until an

‘Interim Certificate’ has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emission Rate) shall be achieved.

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (2011).

13. Prior to occupation of the individual dwelling(s) hereby permitted a Code

for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 ‘Final Certificate’ shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority, certifying that a minimum Code

117

for Sustainable Homes (Version 3) Level 3 and a minimum of 1 credit under Ene 1 (Dwelling Emissions Rate) has been achieved for the dwelling(s).

Reason: To ensure that the development is constructed in accordance with national planning sustainable building standards, in accordance with policy 12 of the Cardiff Local Plan, policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 4.11.4 of Planning Policy Wales (2011).

14. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the

purpose of development until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. These details shall include proposed finished levels, earthworks, hard surfacing materials, proposed and existing services above and below ground level, planting plans (including schedules of plant species, sizes, numbers or densities, and in the case of trees, planting, staking, mulching, protection, soil protection and after care methods) and an implementation programme. The details shall be consistent with other plans submitted in support of the application and the landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved design and implementation programme.

Reason: To maintain and improve the appearance of the area in the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policies 3 and 11 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) and policies 2.20 and 2.53 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003).

15. Any trees, plants, or hedgerows which within a period of five years from

the completion of the development die, are removed, become seriously damaged or diseased, or become (in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority) otherwise defective, shall be replaced in the current planting season or the first two months of the next planting season, whichever is the sooner, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To maintain and improve the appearance of the area in the interests of visual amenity, in accordance with policies 3 and 11 of the City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996) and policies 2.20 and 2.53 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003).

16. No development shall take place until samples of the external finishing

materials have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure that the finished appearance of the development is in keeping with the area in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

17. No equipment, plant or materials shall be brought onto the site for the

purpose of development until retained trees on and adjacent to the site and specified on a submitted and approved plan have been protected.

Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority,

118

protection shall be maintained throughout development until all site operations are complete and shall comprise of barriers of weld-mesh panels firmly fixed to a braced scaffolding framework, conforming to the current British Standard for trees in relation to construction and located to protect a working area extending not more than three metres from the outer wall of the proposed development.

A small opening may be left to allow normal garden activities, but no materials, plant, equipment or waste relating to the development shall be placed, deposited or operated within the protected area. No concrete mixings, fuels or other contaminants shall be discharged where they can detrimentally affect retained trees on or adjacent to the site and fires may not be lit in a position where their flames can extend to within 5m of any part of a retained tree on or adjacent to the site.

Reason: To protect trees of amenity value that might be damaged by building works or related operations, in accordance with policy 11 of the Cardiff Local Plan and policies 2.20 and 2.45 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

18. Prior to the commencement of development, details of a privacy screen to

be erected to the north western side of the balcony at the rear of the dwelling at first floor level shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and the approved screen shall be erected b e f o r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t i s b r o u g h t i n t o b e n e f i c i a l u s e .

Reason: To ensure that the privacy of adjoining occupiers is protected, in accordance with policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The developer is advised to contact Highway

Operations, Brindley Road in order to obtain the necessary 'Road Opening Permit' required to implement the footway crossover works and any other works that are within or adjacent to the adopted highway.

RECOMMENDATION 3: The developer is advised to contact Street Lighting,

Brindley Road, in order to ascertain whether any adjustments / improvements will be required to the existing lighting column as a result of the proposals.

RECOMMENDATION 4: To protect the amenities of occupiers of other

premises in the vicinity attention is drawn to the provisions of Section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 in relation to the control of noise from demolition and construction activities. Further to this the applicant is advised that no noise audible outside the site boundary adjacent to the curtilage of residential property shall be created by construction activities in respect of the implementation of this consent outside the hours of 0800-1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 - 1300 hours on Saturdays or at any time on Sunday or public holidays. The applicant is also advised to seek approval for any proposed piling operations.

RECOMMENDATION 5: This development falls within an area which has a

geological predisposition to radon and will require basic radon protective measures, as recommended for the purposes of the Building Regulations

119

2000. Should you have any queries in this matter I would suggest you consult with my Building Control Division.

RECOMMENDATION 6: The contamination assessments and the affects of

unstable land are considered on the basis of the best information available to the Planning Authority and are not necessarily exhaustive. The Authority takes due diligence when assessing these impacts, however you are minded that the responsibility for

(i) determining the extent and effects of such constraints and; (ii) ensuring that any imported materials (including, topsoils, subsoils,

aggregates and recycled or manufactured aggregates / soils) are chemically suitable for the proposed end use. Under no circumstances should controlled waste be imported. It is an offence under section 33 of the environmental Protection Act 1990 to deposit controlled waste on a site which does not benefit from an appropriate waste management license. The following must not be imported to a development site: • Unprocessed / unsorted demolition wastes. • Any materials originating from a site confirmed as being

contaminated or potentially contaminated by chemical or radioactive substances.

• Japanese Knotweed stems, leaves and rhizome infested soils. In addition to section 33 above, it is also an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to spread this invasive weed; and

(iii) the safe development and secure occupancy of the site rests with the developer.

Proposals for areas of possible land instability should take due account of the

physical and chemical constraints and may include action on land reclamation or other remedial action to enable beneficial use of unstable land.

The Local Planning Authority has determined the application on the basis of

the information available to it, but this does not mean that the land can be considered free from contamination.

. RECOMMENDATION 7: The developer is advised that foul and surface water

discharges must be drained separately from the site. No land drainage run-off shall be permitted to connect (either directly or indirectly) to the public sewerage system and the developer should contact the Local Authority Drainage Services for advice if it is intended to drain surface water to the public sewerage system.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 The application is for full planning permission for the erection of a split-level, 3

bedroom house of a contemporary design, with monopitch roofs, to be single storey rising to 2 storey on one side at the front and two storey at the rear. The building will be finished in ivory coloured render with black brickwork and dark grey profile sheet roofing. Windows and doors will be grey powder coated aluminium. There will be a terrace accessed from the living room at

120

first floor level at the rear. The bedrooms will be at ground floor level. A parking space for one vehicle will be provided at the front of the site.

1.2 The application was originally reported to the Planning Committee on 13th

June 2012 and was deferred for a site visit which took place on 4th July 2012. It was subsequently returned to the Planning Committee on 11th July when it was deferred to enable officers to draft reasons for refusal based on the Committee’s objections to the proposal, which are on the same grounds as the Planning Committee’s previous objections to a proposal for residential development on the adjoining plot (land to the rear of 11, 13 and 15 Ael-Y-Bryn) - that the proposal, by virtue of its scale, massing and siting, would have an un-neighbourly and overbearing effect upon properties on Ael-y- Bryn and would result in an alien and incongruous form of development that would harm the visual amenity of the Cae’r Graig street scene – and including loss of privacy to the garden of the adjoining property to the north.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The site, measuring 11m x 24 to 33m, was formerly part of the rear garden of

a house which lies to the north east and is located between the existing house and a highway, Caer Graig. The land slopes steeply up from the existing house towards the highway to the south west. It is unfenced at its boundaries with the highway and the adjoining land to the south east and there are small trees and shrubs at the lower level close to the existing houses. The land to the north west remains in use as garden. The land to the south east is vacant and has recently been the subject of unsuccessful planning applications for residential development.

2.2 The rear gardens and rear elevations of houses on Graig Lwyd face towards

the front of the site. These are at a higher level than the application site and are set above a retaining wall. There are houses at a lower level on Ael Y Bryn to the north and east with rear habitable room windows facing towards the application site.

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 07/00235/W – New dwelling (outline). Granted 06/02/08. 3.2 Adjoining site history: 09/01898/W – Construction of 2no detached dwellings -

Refused; 10/01589/DCO – Construction of 2no detached split-level dwellings - Refused.

4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 Cardiff Local Plan –

10 (Contaminated or Unstable Land); 11 (Design and Aesthetic Quality); 12 (Energy Efficient Design); 17 (Parking and Servicing Facilities); 28 (Subdivision of Residential Property);

121

30 (Insensitive or Inappropriate Infilling). 4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance - Access, Circulation and Parking

Standards (January 2010); Cardiff Residential Design Guide (March 2008); Trees and Development (March 2007); Waste Collection and Storage Facilities (March 2007); Infill Sites (April 2011).

4.3 Deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan –

2.20 (Good Design); 2.22 (Subdivision of Residential Properties); 2.24 (Residential Amenity); 2.45 (Trees, Woodlands and Hedgerows); 2.57 (Access, Circulation and Parking Requirements); 2.63 (Contaminated and Unstable Land); 2.74 (Provision for Waste Management Facilities in Development).

4.4 Planning Policy Wales (2011):

3.1.7: The planning system does not exist to protect the private interests of one individual against the activities of another. Proposals should be considered in terms of their effect on the amenity and existing use of land and buildings in the public interest. The courts have ruled that the individual interest is an aspect of the public interest and it is therefore valid to consider the effect of a proposal on the amenity of neighbouring properties. However, such consideration should be based on general principles, reflecting the wider public interest (for example a standard of “good neighbourliness”) rather than the concerns of the individual. 4.4.2: Planning policies and proposals should: • Promote resource-efficient and climate change resilient settlement

patterns, wherever possible avoiding development on greenfield sites • Locate developments so as to minimise the demand for travel, especially

by private car • Facilitate sustainable building standards • Ensure that all communities have sufficient good quality housing –

including affordable housing – in safe neighbourhoods 4.6.4: Local planning authorities should assess the extent to which developments are consistent with minimising the need to travel and increasing accessibility by modes other than the private car. Higher density development should be encouraged near public transport nodes or near corridors well served by public transport. 4.10.9: Visual appearance, scale and relationship to surroundings and context are material planning considerations. Local planning Authorities should reject poor building and contextual designs. 4.10.11: Local planning authorities and developers should consider the issue of accessibility for all. 4.10.12: Local Authorities are under a legal obligation to consider the need to prevent and reduce crime and disorder in all decisions that they take. 4.11.2: Development proposals should mitigate the causes of climate change by minimising carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions associated with their design, construction, use and eventual demolition. 4.11.3: Development proposals should also include features that provide

122

effective adaptation to and resilience against the current and predicted future effects of climate change, for example by incorporating green space to provide shading, sustainable drainage systems to reduce run-off, and are designed to prevent over-heating and to avoid the need for artificial cooling of buildings. 4.11.4: sets out the sustainability standards that the Assembly Government expects new buildings to meet. 9.1.1 : The Assembly Government will seek to ensure that previously developed land is used in preference to Greenfield sites; new housing and residential environments are well designed, meet national sustainability standards and make a significant contribution to promoting community regeneration and improving the quality of life, and new housing development in towns, villages and edge of settlement locations is a mix of affordable and market housing that retains and where possible enhances important landscape and wildlife features in the development. 9.2.13: Sensitive design and good landscaping are particularly important if new buildings are successfully to be fitted into small vacant sites in established residential areas. 9.3.3: Insensitive infilling or the cumulative effects of development or redevelopment should not be allowed to damage an area’s character and amenity.

4.5 Technical Advice Note 12 (Design):

5.11.2 Development proposals, in relation to housing design should aim to: create places with the needs of people in mind, which are distinctive and

respect local character promote layouts and design features which encourage community safety

and accessibility focus on the quality of the places and living environments for pedestrians

rather than the movement and parking of vehicles avoid inflexible planning standards and encourage layouts which manage

vehicle speeds through the geometry of the road and building promote environmental sustainability features, such as energy efficiency,

in new housing and make clear specific commitments to carbon reductions and/or sustainable building standards

secure the most efficient use of land including appropriate densities consider and balance potential conflicts between these criteria.

5.11.3: The design of housing layouts and built form should respect local context and distinctiveness, including topography and building fabric.

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 Operational Manager Transportation: No objections subject to approval of

parking details (the parking space should measure 2.4m wide x 4.8m long and the footway crossover should be 3m wide), approval of details of the proposed access onto Caer Graig (including construction details of the driveway and ensuring that the gradient does not exceed 1 in 12) and a construction management plan. The developer will require a “Road Opening Permit” to implement the works within or adjacent to the adopted highway and the existing lighting column may have to be altered.

123

5.2 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Drainage): No objection

subject to a condition requiring ground permeability tests to be undertaken to ascertain whether sustainable drainage techniques can be utilised and approval of a drainage scheme for the disposal of both surface water and foul sewage. No discharge of surface water from the completed development including driveways and / or private roads will be permitted to drain to the public highway or any highway drain.

5.3 Pollution Control (Noise and Air): Standard recommendation relating to

construction site noise. 5.4 Pollution Control (Contaminated Land): Should there be any importation of

soils to develop the garden area then it must be demonstrated that they are suitable for the end use. Conditions are requested relating to imported materials and standard recommendations are made relating to radon gas protection and contaminated/unstable land.

5.5 Chief Officer Highways and Waste Management (Waste): No objections. 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEES RESPONSES 6.1 Welsh Water: Foul and surface water discharges must be drained separately.

No surface water shall be allowed to connect to the public sewerage system unless agreed by the local planning authority. No land drainage will be permitted to discharge to the public sewerage system.

6.2 Radyr and Morganstown Community Council: Object to the application. Under

the planning consent given to application 07/235/W in February 2008, condition 3 states that the split-level design should be as “indicated in illustrative drawing 2006/OP500/02’’ … “in order to ensure the development does not have an overbearing or overshadowing effect on the existing properties in Ael y Bryn”. That drawing shows a 2 storey dwelling. Although the amended proposed dwelling has been moved away from No. 17 by some 2m it is still a 3-storey building with an attic room now added to the top floor. The roof line, especially the highest ridge height, as viewed on the north east facing elevation, and therefore from the garden of no. 17 Ael y Bryn, appears to be higher than expected for a building which should be, overall, two storeys. The Community Council considers the proposed building to be overbearing on the site because of the extremely steep slope with very large windows to north. We also feel that this application contravenes the Infill Supplementary Planning Guidance as follows: 1.3: We feel that the proposed development harms the amenity of existing occupiers, making a negative contribution to the community by not responding to the context and character of the area. 1.6: While gardens may be considered to be brownfield sites, the proposed development would damage the character and residential amenity of the existing residential area. 2.2: The proposed development will result in a more intensive use of land by building on existing gardens.

124

2.15: By developing the back gardens of a house, the proposed development will have an adverse effect on the biodiversity and amenity of the site. The significant differences in ground surface height together with the loss of green space will increase surface water runoff.

7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour notification. The residents

of 19 Ael Y Bryn object to the application on the following grounds:

1. Loss of privacy caused by large windows and patio doors of habitable rooms being angled towards 19 Ael Y Bryn. These should face towards the open land at the side instead.

2. Overshadowing of their rear garden. 3. The building will be overbearing 4. The proposal contradicts the Council’s adopted planning guidelines in the

Supplementary Planning Guidance “Infill Sites”. 7.2 Councillor McKerlich states that he objects to the development for the reasons

given by the Radyr and Morganstown Community Council and he also believes that a precedent has been set by the recent refusal of planning permission for the construction of two houses in the gardens of 11, 13 and 15 Ael Y Bryn.

7.3 His specific grounds for objection, which were reported to the Planning

Committee on 11th July 2012, are: (1) The proposed development is not subservient to the original houses in Ael

y Bryn and this is made worse by its position on the top of the escarpment. This contravenes the Supplementary Planning Guidance

(2) The scale of the proposed house and its distance from the conservatory is similar to that of the 2 other proposed nearby houses and that proposal was rejected rightly.

3) This proposal would create an overbearing and unneighbourly development with patio and decking areas and large picture windows overlooking the garden, conservatory and master bedroom of 19 Ael y Bryn.

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 The site lies within a residential area and outline planning permission has

previously been granted for the erection of a dwelling on this site therefore there are no objections to the principle of the proposed development. The issues to consider are the impact on visual amenity and the character of the area, and the impact on the amenities of adjoining residents.

8.2 The dwelling would be of a contemporary design which would contrast with

the traditional 1970’s suburban style found in the surrounding area. However, this is considered acceptable as the site when viewed from the public highway is not immediately adjacent to existing dwellings (only the rear boundaries of houses face onto this part of Caer Graig, the first houses to

125

front the road being around 80m to the south), the elevation facing onto the highway will be relatively low and the building will not appear out of place in the street scene.

8.3 With regard to the impact on residential amenity, from the rear the topography

of the steeply sloping site means that the property is elevated above Ael-y-Bryn. The form and height of the highest part of the roof slope emphasises the scale of the building, which is further reinforced by the large windows and balcony area at the upper floors. The plans have been amended to reduce the depth of the building’s footprint and site it further forwards towards Caer Graig and this has gone some way towards reducing the overbearing impact to the north, although the projecting element of the mono-pitched roof still emphasises the scale of the development when viewed from Ael Y Bryn and there will still be a balcony and large window areas on the north east elevation. However, the development will be more than 21m from the rear windows of 17 and 19 Ael Y Bryn (and around 20m from a conservatory at the rear of no. 19) and retained trees and shrubs, landscaping and fencing will provide a certain amount of screening as will the balustrade to the first floor balcony. The amendments to the plans have reduced the height of the highest part of the roof, reduced the area of glazing to the upper rear elevation and altered the details of the balcony balustrade to reduce visibility. Although the perception of overlooking will be greater because of the building’s location on higher ground, it is considered that the distance between the proposed building and the habitable room windows of existing houses is acceptable for the maintenance of privacy and that the impact of the appearance of the dwelling can be mitigated by the use of appropriate landscaping.

8.4 The development will not result in a significant amount of overshadowing of

neighbouring properties. A shadow cast report submitted with the application states that there would be minimal impact in Spring, Summer and Autumn months and that shading would occur in the winter months only from mid-day onwards, when natural overshadowing is caused by the topography of the site from around 2pm anyway. This limited impact is considered acceptable.

8.5 Regarding the objections received:

1. The impact on privacy is assessed above. The applicant wishes to retain large windows and a balcony at the rear of the house in order to take advantage of the extensive views to the north and east. The “open land” at the side is likely to be developed in the future given that outline planning permission has been granted for residential development.

2. The shadow cast report shows that the development would cause little additional overshadowing of neighbouring properties. Overshadowing would not be significant enough to warrant the refusal of planning permission.

3. The building will be split-level, as approved in the outline planning consent granted in 2008, which minimises its impact on neighbouring properties. According to the submitted sectional drawings, it will be around 6.5m tall at the rear and set 3m above the level of the gardens of the houses on Ael Y Bryn (i.e. the apex of the roof will be 9.5m above ground level at the

126

rear of Ael Y Bryn) and will be at a distance of 14 to 16m from the rear site boundary and around 21m from the nearest windows in the neighbouring houses. It is not considered that a structure of this height at this distance from the neighbouring property will be unacceptably overbearing.

4. The proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Supplementary Planning Guidance “Infill Sites” – it successfully responds to character and context, there is sufficient amenity distance between the proposed house and existing development, it provides an adequate amount of useable garden space and leaves the existing house with an adequate amount (in this case more than 80 square metres), maintains appropriate scale and massing and responds well to the existing street scene. There is concern that the frontage will be taken up by car parking and will not provide adequate space for substantial landscaping; however, this situation arises because the building has to be kept as far away as possible from the houses at the rear in order to maintain privacy and amenity standards, and on balance is considered acceptable.

8.6 In response to the objections raised by the Radyr and Morganstown

Community Council: The drawings submitted with the outline planning application show a house with a lower maximum ridge height but these were indicative only and the current application is not bound by that consent, which expired in February 2011. Furthermore, the indicative outline drawing shows a house with a first floor balcony at the rear which would have been closer to the houses on Ael Y Bryn than is the currently proposed development. The issue of whether the building will be overbearing and whether it is in accordance with the relevant SPG is discussed above. There will not be any measurable adverse impact on biodiversity – there are no significant species on the site that will be disturbed by the development, there was no control over the management of the former garden (e.g. it could have been paved or managed as a species-poor lawn area) and the site will be landscaped following development which could improve its biodiversity value. No objections have been raised by the Council’s Drainage Engineers regarding surface water run-off: a drainage scheme will be required to be approved and this will include sustainable urban drainage techniques if soakaway tests show that these are feasible.

8.7 Regarding Councillor McKerlich’s assertion that the refusal of the application

for residential development on the adjoining site sets a precedent for refusal of this application, this is not considered to be the case – each application must be determined on its own merits. The proposed dwellings on the adjacent plots were larger (two storeys to the front elevation and three to the rear, with a maximum height of around10m above their rear garden area and around 16m above the rear gardens of houses on Ael Y Bryn), with much shorter rear gardens (8.5m and 9m) and of an awkward design which attempted to fit a standard suburban house type onto a very constrained, sloping site and which resulted in what may be considered to be an “alien and incongruous” form of development.

8.8 With regard to Councillor McKerlich’s specific grounds for objection:

127

(1) The proposal is not “backland” development as it will front onto Cae’r

Graig. The Infill Sites SPG requires “backland” development to be subservient to the dwellings in front of it. The application demonstrates how the proposed building height responds to the houses on Ael Y Bryn, taking into account the difference in site levels.

(2) The houses that were proposed on the adjacent plots are described at paragraph 8.7 of the committee report. Refusal of permission for development of the adjoining plots does not set a precedent for refusal of this application.

(3) The issue of overlooking of the adjacent property is considered elsewhere in the committee report.

8.9 In conclusion, it is considered, on balance, that the proposal is acceptable.

The appearance of the building will harmonise with the surrounding area and there will be no detriment to the street scene, the distance between the windows of the new building and existing properties will be in accordance with adopted guidelines and the impact on the amenities of residents of adjoining properties can be mitigated through the use of screening and landscaping. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions set out above.

8.10 If the Committee is minded to refuse the application, the following reasons for

refusal are suggested to reflect the concerns expressed at the Planning Committee meeting of 11th July 2012.

8.11 (1) The proposal, by virtue of its scale, massing and elevated position, would

have an un-neighbourly and overbearing effect upon the property at 19 Ael-y- Bryn, contrary to policy 2.20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003), paragraph 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales (2011), paragraph 6.7 of TAN 12 (Design) and paragraph 4.11 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Infill Design Guide’ (2011).

(2) The proposed development would include a balcony overlooking and

habitable room windows facing towards the gardens of the properties to the north, which, by virtue of the elevated position of the proposed building in relation to those properties, would result in loss of privacy, contrary to policy 2.24 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan and paragraph 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales (2011).

(3) The proposal, by virtue of its siting and external appearance, would result

in an alien and incongruous form of development that would harm the visual amenity of the Cae’r Graig street scene, contrary to policy 11 of the adopted City of Cardiff Local Plan (1996), policy 2:20 of the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development Plan (2003), paragraph 9.3.3 of Planning Policy Wales (2011) and paragraphs 3.12, 3.15, 3.16 and 3.18 of the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘Infill Design Guide’ (2011).

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

LOCAL MEMBER OBJECTION, PETITIONS COMMITTEE DATE: 15/08/2012 APPLICATION No. 12/529/DCO APPLICATION DATE: 01/05/2012 ED: RHIWBINA APP: TYPE: Full Planning Permission APPLICANT: Mr Carlson LOCATION: LAND ADJACENT TO 15 CWM NOFYDD, RHIWBINA PROPOSAL: RETENTION OF DETACHED DWELLING ___________________________________________________________________ RECOMMENDATION 1: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to

the following conditions:

1. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any Order amending, revoking, or re-enacting that Order) no structure or extension shall be placed within the curtilage of the dwelling or any alteration undertaken to any roof.

Reason: To ensure the orderly development of the area with adequate space about buildings and in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

2. Within 3 months of this approval a landscaping scheme shall be submitted

in writing to the Local Planning Authority for its approval. Thereafter the scheme shall be implemented within the next planting season. The submitted details shall include provision of a replacement tree for the Ash tree lost as a consequence of this development. Details of the species of the replacement shall be submitted together with its planted size, measures to provide any necessary soil enhancement and details of its subsequent maintenance.

Reason: In accordance with the special duty imposed by Section 197 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

3. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved

scheme submitted in discharge of condition 3. Any trees, plants, or hedgerows which, within a period of five years from the completion of the development, die, or are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the current planting season or the first two months of the next planting season whichever is the sooner, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

Reason: To maintain and improve the amenity of the area 4. The two parking spaces at the front of the property shall be maintained at

136

all times and shall not be used for any purpose other than the parking of vehicles.

Reason: To ensure that the use of the proposed development does not interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic passing along the highway.

RECOMMENDATION 2: The applicant is advised to contact Welsh Water tel

08009172652 quoting reference number 2012/DCWW/80124. to assess the location of any sewers.

1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 1.1 Full planning permission is sought to retain the house with a rear dormer and

two parking spaces to the front. The house is finished in render to the first floor and facing brick to the ground floor.

1.2 Planning permission was granted in 2008 (planning reference 08/00193/W) for

a detached house without a dormer. The house that has been built is unauthorised due to the construction of the dormer at the same time as the house.

2. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 2.1 The area was formerly used for two flat roof garages which were located next

to a row of terrace and semi detached properties. The site is elevated higher than the adjoining properties.

2.2 The site is not located within a conservation area and nor are there any Listed

Buildings affected by this development. The Cwm Nofydd Estate is characterised by post war semi-detached / terraced housing. Immediately to the south is the car park of the Deri public house.

3. SITE HISTORY 3.1 08/193/W – Erection of a 3 bedroom house - approved. 3.2 07/2873/W – Withdrawn 3.3 9/394/N – detached dwelling and garage – refused overbearing and cramped

form of development 4. POLICY FRAMEWORK 4.1 The Crime and Disorder Act (1998) created a statutory partnership between

local authorities, the police and other key partners to work together in reducing crime and disorder in all aspects of their work. Section 17 of the Act states:

“It is the duty of the authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect on crime and disorder in its area and the need to do all that it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder.”

137

4.2 Planning Policy Wales (2011)

4.3 Technical Advice Note: 9 (Enforcement), 10 (Trees), 12 (Design), 18

(Transportation).

4.4 Other National Guidance that is relevant: W/O 35/95 ‘Use of Conditions in Planning Permission’

4.5 The following policies found within the South Glamorgan (Cardiff Area)

Replacement Structure Plan (adopted 1997) are relevant to the determination of this application; EV 2 (Sustainable development).

4.6 The following policies found within the City of Cardiff Local Plan (adopted 1996) are relevant to the determination of this application; 11 (Design & Aesthetic Quality, 17 (Parking & Servicing facilities), 18 (Provision for cyclists) 30 (Insensitive or inappropriate infilling).

4.7 The following policies found within the deposit Cardiff Unitary Development

Plan (2003) are relevant to the determination of the application; 1.B (Achieving Good Design), 2.20 (Good Design), 2.24 (Residential Amenity)

4.8 Information contained within the following Supplementary Planning Guidance

is relevant to the determination of the application: Access, Circulation, Parking requirements (2010), Infill Design Guide (2010), Trees and Development (2007)’ Waste Collection and storage facilities (2007)

5. INTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 5.1 Operational Manager (Transportation) has no objections subject to conditions. 6. EXTERNAL CONSULTEE RESPONSES 6.1 Welsh Water has no objections. 7. REPRESENTATIONS 7.1 Eight neighbouring properties were notified. The following representations

were received:

• The owner of 15 Cwm Nofydd (adjoining property to the north east) objects to this application on the following grounds:

The dormer (not on the original plans) is causing overlooking, loss of privacy and overshadowing.

The development is overbearing, out-of-scale and out of character to the existing neighbourhood.

The design, including materials are out of character with the area.

138

• David Davies, chartered Surveyor, acting for the owners of 15 Cwm Nofydd, believes that the scheme contravenes planning requirements in the following ways:

Harms the visual character of the area The substantial dormer window is both overbearing and out of scale and

character of the building. • The owner of 28 Cwm Nofydd objects on the following grounds: The house is higher and of a finish that is out of character with the area. Believes that the planning officials have made a serious mistake in

approving a house on this site. Questions the publicity requirement undertaken as part of the planning

process. • 19 Cwm Nofydd objects to this application on the following grounds The design, siting and its finish is out of character and keeping with the

area. The rear dormer is intrusive and unacceptable. The objector disputes the claim that the site has attracted illegal dumping. • The owner of 6 Heol Y Bryn objects to this development on the following

grounds: Adverse effect on the residential amenity of the adjoining neighbours Unacceptable height and density Out of keeping with the character of the neighbourhood Loss of views and value to property The owners have every sympathy with the plight of the owners of the next

door affected property and feel they deserve a far more understanding treatment in the sprit of the guidelines.

• R.O. Roberts, Architect, objects as a qualified architect living within the

area that squeezing this building onto the site is not in keeping with the character of the area which is made worse by the large rear dormer.

Also raises concerns over access to 15 Cwm Nofydd in an emergency. Believes there is insufficient parking. • Professor Cooke, FRSA, MRTPI objects to this application on the

following grounds: I write to express professional judgement on the dwelling constructed at

the above location. As you will appreciate, this has caused outrage among the many residents living nearby or directly affected. As a Chartered Town Planner of over forty years, I have to say I have never seen a more egregious example of 'shoehorning' on an inadequate site. The imperative to squeeze skywards to approach liveability has merely turned a mistaken design into a visual monstrosity and has three main concerns:

I am concerned at the obvious fact that the building is wholly out of keeping with its neighbours. This is especially pronounced in relation to the nearest street-neighbours in regard to scale (out of keeping by

139

height), appearance (neither in keeping regarding render nor roof material) and shape (verticality to squeeze floorspace into an inappropriate site).

Second, proximity of boundaries is worrying technically. Presuming fire

regulations and other by-laws have been adhered to, it is clearly apparent that a conflagration could easily spread to the neighbouring property, especially given Cardiff's 'windy city' character.

Third, and finally, the overlooking of properties occasioned by the rear

dormer window is truly unacceptable given the preceding point about proximity. Permission should never be given for a dwelling on that site. It should absolutely not allow a top-floor dormer window (if permission ever was given for that). Instead, as a general rule in such impossible spaces upper floor fenestration should - as at the front - be restricted to a flat 'Velux' window, which would have been far less intrusive.

7.2 A petition of over 50 residents has been submitted, which supports the

retention of the dwelling. Also a petition of 300 signatures has been submitted against the development

7.3 The Local Ward Members have been notified and Cllr Cowan objects to this

scheme on the following grounds:

• The scale, height, massing and finish is out of character with the area and contrary to local and national policies which seeks good design to have regard to the character and context of the area

• The dormer is an intrusive feature that harms the amenity and privacy of the adjoining neighbours

8. ANALYSIS 8.1 Considerable concern has been raised by objectors to the scale, siting, design

and use of materials, which they consider has resulted in an alien incongruous form of design. Whatever opinion Members of Committee may hold on the aesthetic merit of the proposal they should be mindful of the applicant’s fall back position. In 2008 planning permission was granted for the work as it currently stands but without the dormer window it now possesses. At that time the application was the subject of a single representation objecting to the proposal. The grounds for objection were the height of the dwelling in relation to the neighbour at no. 15. The objector felt this would result in a loss of light and the single storey annex would appear to be two storey when viewed from No. 15. planning permission was granted. That development can still be built by removing the dormer and roofing over to accord with the approved plans.

8.2 The 2008 approved plans did not show a dormer. It is acknowledged by officers that the dormer emphases the verticality of the development and is not itself a sensitive example. However, the planning permission did not remove permitted development rights to construct such a dormer extension

140

since none of the neighbour properties had such control. The community may wish the dormer removed but it could be rebuilt exactly the same using the permitted development rights from the 2008 permission if the 2008 development is completed in accordance with the approved plans. It is considered therefore that seeking enforcement action to remove the dormer would be irrational given this fall back position.

8.3 The representations received take no account of the fall back position and

seek to have the matter determined as if the lawful permission did not exist, they should in this case be set aside insofar as they revisit matters that have been determined i.e. height, appearance and impact on the neighbours.

8.4 In light of the addition of the dormer to the development is built it is considered

reasonable to remove ‘permitted development’ rights that would otherwise have if planning permission is granted to retain the building as it stands.

8.5 Allegations that the submitted plans are inaccurate have been noted but they

are believed to be a reasonable representation of that which sought to be retained.

8.6 Given the fall back position, as outlined above, officers recommend approval

of the development, subject to a condition to provide landscaping which has yet to be completed together with one to retain off street parking (these conditions were attached to the original consent) and removal of ‘permitted development’ rights.

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148